Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3542 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 990 of 2024 Petitioner :- Chetram And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav,Vijay Pal Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Pal Singh,Devesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent and Sri K.P. Singh Visen learned counsel who has filed his counter affidavit on behalf of private respondent no.4. Under challenge is the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the D.D.C whereby the revision of the petitioners was dismissed affirming the order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the S.O.C and the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the respondent no.3. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that while allotting the chaks to the petitioners, the three authorities have failed to consider that the boring of the petitioners was located on plot no.335 which has not been given to the petitioners and this is in violation of the principle as laid down in Section 19 of the U.P.C.H Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is further submitted that as far as possible the petitioners should have been granted his rights over the plot no.335 which had the boring and instead the petitioners had been given plot nos.353 and 354 and thus it is urged that this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the three consolidation authorities and as such the impugned orders deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the private respondent while refuting the aforesaid submissions has submitted that the petitioners had been granted rights over his mool gata and therefore, there can be no grievance as raised by the petitioners. It is further urged that there is nothing to indicate that the boring of the petitioners was on plot no.335 whereas the record would indicate that the boring was on the plot of the private respondent no.4 as shall also be evident from CH Form-2 and in contradiction if the CH Form-2 of the petitioners is seen it would indicate that there is no mention regarding boring. It is also urged by the counsel for the private respondent that the petition stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact which requires no interference and writ petition deserves to be rejected. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the petitioners have been accommodated on their mool gata. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that they should be accommodated on plot no.335 which contains the boring to the petitioners. In this regard, if the material available on record is seen, it would indicate that before the D.D.C, the petitioners have not raisef this ground that the boring is on plot no.335. This issue is being raised before this Court though it was not urged before the D.D.C. The record would further indicates that before the S.O.C, there is a reference that the petitioners had his boring but as noticed above, this plea was not raised before the D.D.C. This fact apart, if CH Form-2A of the petitioners is seen, it would indicate that there is no reference to indicate that the boring was available. The only reference in Form-2A is in column-19 which refers to the means of irrigation. At the stage, it will further be relevant to mention that in map which has been brought on record by the petitioners along with their supplementary affidavit dated 25.10.2024, it is urged that it indicates that the boring is available at the site. Considering the Form 2A of the private respondent no.4, it would indicate that the presence of boring was noticed while making the survey and this is conspicuously absent in Form 2A of the petitioners. As noticed above that the petitioners did not raise the issue of boring before the D.D.C and, moreover, in CH Form 2A of the petitioners the boring has not been shown in column-10 rather, the reference is only in column-19 which reflects the source of irrigation. However, this cannot be construed as the boring was of the petitioners alone. In view of the aforesaid, where the petitioners had not raised this issue before the D.D.C and moreover, the record placed before the Court does not indicate with clarity regarding the boring of the petitioners being available on plot no.335, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which otherwise stands concluded by concurrent findings of facts as well as noticing that the petitioners had been accommodated on their mool gata. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and dismissed. Order Date :- 17.1.2025/Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench