Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1495 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1318 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation/ Addl. Distrcit Magistrate (F/N), Kheri And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Verma,Kusuma Devi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Satendra Nath Rai Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice for the respondent No.4. Shri Satendra Nath Rai, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private-respondent No.3 on caveat. Under challenge is the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby the revision preferred by the private-respondent No.3 was allowed. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order allowing the revision was ex-parte whereafter the petitioner had filed an application for recall, which was allowed on the same very day and the earlier order dated 20.12.2023 has been confirmed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the private-respondent No.3 are real brothers. They have equally shares in Plots No.60, 64 and 67. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since both the petitioner and the private-respondent No.3 are real brothers and each had half share in all the three plots, hence, at the time of allotment of chaks, the petitioner has not been granted any right on the Plot No.64. It is urged that the said plot is near abadi and by not granting the right in Plot No.64, the petitioner has been prejudiced. It is further urged that the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereafter the private-respondent No.3 preferred a revision which as per the order dated 20.12.2023 came to be allowed. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it is not disputed that the petitioner and the private-respondent No.3 are real brothers and are the joint holders of their respective shares in Plots No.60, 64 and 67. As per Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, it is clearly delineated that so far as possible, the parties should be accommodated on their mool gatas. In the instant case, from a perusal of the map, which has been brought on record as Annexure No.6, it would indicate that the petitioner has been accommodated on his mool gata of Plots No.60 and 64. Merely because no right has been granted on Plot No.64 to the petitioner would not indicate that there is any prejudice has been caused inasmuch as the petitioner has been accommodated on Plots No.60 and 67 which are both mool gatas. There is nothing to be indicated as to how the petitioner has been prejudiced merely because he has not been granted his share in Plot No.64 whereas from the map, it does not indicate that there is any vast difference which may cause prejudice to the petitioner if he has not been granted rights in Plot No.64. Largely, the petitioner has been granted rights in Plots No.60 and 67 which are contiguous plots and for the reasons as aforesaid, there does not appear any error which may persuade this Court to entertain the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench