Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113249 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1731 of 2025 Petitioner :- Parasnath Alias Kallu And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Bilas Kannaujia,Shashi Ranjan Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyanendra Tripathi,Krishna Nand Rai,Vijay Anand Rai Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Shri Shashi Ranjan Srivastava, learned counsel appears for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3-State and Shri Vijay Anand Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. By the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur, the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The impugned order dated 30.12.2024 records that the order dated 05.01.1984 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Rambagh, Mirzapur on the basis of a compromise between the parties in proceedings instituted under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Subsequently by order dated 20.02.1984 the Consolidation Officer made certain amendments in the allotment after altering the valuation of the plots. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur in the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 has found that the order dated 20.02.1984 was not consistent with the compromise between the parties. The appellate authority by order dated 27.03.1984 set aside the aforesaid order of Consolidation Officer and allotted the chaks in consonance with the compromise between the parties. None of the parties has been able to dispute the compromise or terms thereof. At this stage the only argument made on behalf of the petitioner is that no order was passed on 20.02.1984. The argument is on the face of it liable to be rejected. The memo of the appeal in Appeal No.405 of 1984 (Amarnath v. Kallu and others) clearly discloses the challenge to the order dated 20.02.1984. The petitioner contested the appeal. He never raised the aforesaid ground. Moreover, there is a presumption of correctness in favour of the official records. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner by way of his pleadings or from the records regarding the fraudulent nature or non-existence of order dated 20.02.1984. The instant writ petition is clearly an attempt to prolong the litigation and disturb the state of affairs which were settled long back in the year 1985 on the basis of compromise. The compromise has never been put to challenge by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Ashish Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad