HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 125 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Ram Ujagir Verma, learned counsel for the review- applicants. 1. By means of the present application the applicants have sought to review the judgment and order dated 21.8.2025 passed in Writ B No.886/2024 (Srikant and others Vs. Board of Revenue and others). 2. The grievance raised by the review-applicants / petitioners was with regard to the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code at the behest of the private respondents. The only ground pressed and urged by the petitioners is that in exercise of the powers under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, no person can be given more land than what is recorded in his name in the revenue records. According to the petitioners, private respondents are entitled to only limited area of gata No.1193 of which they are recorded tenure holders measuring 1620 square meters while, according to the calculations made in the present application, the area handed over to them is 11343.7 square meters. It is noticed that this aspect of the matter was duly considered by this Court, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment and further this factual controversy as sought to be re-agitated by the petitioners in the present application, was duly considered by all the 3. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ram Ujagir Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Shrikant And 5 Others .....Applicant(s) Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others .....Opposite Party(s) authorities and as the petitioners could not prove or establish the same was rejected by them and this Court while reconsidering the aforesaid facts had dismissed the writ petition. This aspect of the matter was duly considered in the survey report which was the basis of the orders passed by the authorities below and a categorical finding was recorded by this Court that there is no error in the survey report and before relying on the survey report the Revenue Inspector was cross examined and full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners at all the stages of the proceedings. It is only in this regard that this Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment did not find any ground for interference. Apart from the above, we find that the matter which has already been decided cannot be re-agitated or reheard during the review proceedings and accordingly this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record necessitating interference in the judgment dated 21.8.2025. No other point was urged by the petitioner in support of his submissions. 4. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out, hence, the application for review is rejected. 5. October 27, 2025 RKM. CMRA No. 125 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench