Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11956 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 742 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Kumar Maurya,Jai Prakash Yadav,Rakesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjani Nath Khare,Charan Pratap Singh,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Himanshu Kumar Bachhil Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent and Sri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil learned counsel for the private respondent nos.5 to 7. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the D.D.C., Lucknow whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order passed by the S.O.C dated 29.10.2021 which in turn affirmed the order passed by the C.O dated 18.03.2021. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that before the Consolidation Officer the petitioner had not given any consent and the demarcation of the chaks allotted amongst the parties before the C.O allegedly on the basis of consent was not given by the petitioner, hence, the said allotment was bad. It is further submitted that the right of the petitioner to access chak road has been affected and for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the C.O. was challenged in an appeal preferred before the S.O.C. It is also urged that in the memo of appeal a specific ground was taken that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to contest, moreover, the consent which was reflected in the order passed by C.O was never given by the petitioner, however, this aspect was not considered rather the S.O.C dismissed the appeal. The petitioner being aggrieved escalated the matter by filing a revision before the D.D.C Lucknow who also dismissed the revision without considering the aforesaid aspect. Sri Bachhil learned counsel for the private respondent nos.5 to 7 submits that the petitioner has been afforded adequate opportunity both before the S.O.C as well as D.D.C and in any case, no case for prejudice has been made out. All the parties have been accommodated as per their own consent and there is nothing to indicate that any right of the petitioner had been adversely affected. The S.O.C as well as the D.D.C has considered the matter on merits, hence, the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities are pure findings of fact which do not require any interference in writ jurisdiction. The Court has also heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as not having been afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing does not impress this Court for the reason that the petitioner has taken recourse to file a statutory appeal as well as statutory revision before both the authorities. The petitioner has set up his case which did not find favour with the consolidation authorities. Thus, in absence of any proof of deprivation of a right of hearing coupled with the fact that no real prejudice has been shown does not permit this Court to entertain the first submission especially when petitioners had advanced submissions both before the S.O.C and D.D.C. Thus, the first limb of the submission of counsel for the petitioner does not sustain. In so far as the fact that the petitioner had not granted consent before the Consolidation Officer while the chaks were allotted also does not impress this Court for the reason that though the petitioner had raised this issue before the S.O.C in his memo of appeal but the same was conspicuously absent while filing the revision. Even if at all the issue as to whether the petitioner had given his consent or not is examined it would be found that the petitioner has been accommodated on his mool gata and perhaps there is no violation or prejudice which has been caused to the petitioner. The record further indicates that on 28.11.2022, the petitioner was granted time to file a map to indicate as to how the petitioner was adversely affected, however, despite the same more than two years have been lapsed but no such map has been produced on record. No prejudice could be substantiated nor violations of Section 19 of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 could be established. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities that the petitioner has been accommodated on his mool gata and in absence of real prejudice, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 27.2.2025/Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench