Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:464 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1311 of 2024 Petitioner :- Bal Govind Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Kumar,Surjeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.4. Under challenge is the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected affirming the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 10.09.2014. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of the allotment of the chaks, the petitioner had two plots bearing Plots No.283 and 414 respectively. Since, the groves of some of the ancestors of the petitioner was located on the Plot No.283, he required the same to be settled with the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer after getting the area inspected, granted the Plots No.283 as well as 414 to the petitioner. The private-respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which came to be allowed on 10.09.2014 against which the petitioner preferred a revision which has been dismissed on 25.07.2024. The submission is that since the groves of the ancestors of the petitioner was located on Plot No.283, consequently, the authorities have erred in not considering this aspect of the matter and rejecting the revision. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed that the Plot No.414 is the mool gata of the petitioner which was settled with him in consolidation proceedings. So far as the Plot No.283 is concerned which is also not disputed that the petitioner has a minuscule area therein rather the larger was that of the private-respondents. In light of the undisputed facts, where the petitioner has been accorded his mool gata coupled with the fact the petitioner had a smaller holding on Plot No.283, which has been largely retained by the private-respondents who are larger tenure holder. Consequently, the reasons as well as the manner in which the plots have been allotted, does not suffer from any patent illegality which may persuade this Court to entertain the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench