HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8336 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. In light of proposed order, notices to respondent No. 5 is dispensed with. 3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) in exercise of powers U/S 24 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code thereby rejecting the appeal. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that private respondent had moved an application U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 stating that she is the recorded tenure holder of Gata Nos. 5896, 5917 and 5965 situated in Village Hilauli, Pargana - Mauravan, Tehsil - Purva, District - Unnao and due to rains the boundary has been washed away and its causing difficulty in farming and the adjacent tenure holders are not permitting him to construct a fresh boundary due to which the application U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was moved. 5. All the adjacent tenure holders were made of parties who had filed their objections to the application U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and a report from the Revenue Inspector was also called for. All the objections preferred by the adjacent co-tenure holders was rejected and the report of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Amar Nath And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) the Tehsildar dated 30.07.2017 was affirmed and directions were issued for demarcation of the land of the private respondents. 6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Unnao dated 19.07.2019 had preferred an appeal U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow. 7. The respondents have taken up preliminary objections and the petitioners ere not aggrieved person inasmuch as his chak is not adjacent to the land of respondent No. 5 and therefore the appeal itself was not maintainable. In this regard, a report from the revenue authorities was also called for from which it was evident that the petitioners are tenure holder of Gata Nos. 5922 and 6033D which are not adjacent to the gata of respondent No. 5 and therefore she cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the order passed U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in favour of respondent No. 5 and dismissed the appeal. 8. In the present writ petition, there is no averment that the petitioner is in any manner affected by the demarcation of the agricultural land of the private respondents. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the appellate order dated 24.03.2025. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 9. Considering that the matter is pending consideration before the various authorities for extremely long length of time, they are directed to comply with the orders passed U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 forthwith. September 4, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 8336 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench