Krishna Murari, J.: - Heard Sri K.R.Sirohi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nipun Singh for the petitioner and Sri Udayan Nandan for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Facts in short relevant for the purposes of the case are as under : Suit under section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') filed by the petitioners seeking declaration of their rights in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 12.8.2004. The petitioners went up in appeal which was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 27.10.2005. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners also moved an application under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act with the prayer that the revenue entries may be corrected and their names may be recorded over the plots in dispute. Sub Di­visional Officer, Dadri, Gautam Budh Na» gar vide order dated 22.2.2001 dismissed the application. The petitioners went up in revision. Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13.6.2003 allowed the same and remitted the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for fresh consideration. Revision filed by the respondent No. 3 against the said order before the Board of Revenue was dismissed. The Sub Divi­sional Officer, Dadri vide order dated 20.7.2009 again dismissed the application of the petitioners. Again the petitioners went up in revision which was dismissed vide order dated 13.7.2010. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as revisional or­der dated 13.7.2010, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. The Sub Divi­sional Officer, Dadri vide order dated 20.7.2009 again dismissed the application of the petitioners. Again the petitioners went up in revision which was dismissed vide order dated 13.7.2010. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as revisional or­der dated 13.7.2010, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that grandfather of the petitioners Ganga Sahai was 'Bhumidhar' in possession of the land in dispute and after his death the name of his wife Smt. Pushan was recorded in the revenue record and the respondents No. 3 to 5 want to grab the property and there was a dispute which was settled by the order of the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1065 vide order dated 13.5.1954 wherein the grandmother of the petitioners was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute but somehow by ma­nipulation again the respondents came to be recorded and when the petitioners came to know of the same in the year 2000 they ini­tiated proceedings under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and also filed suit under section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act seeking declaration. It is further contended that against the order dated 12.8.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dismissing the suit under section 229-B of the Act the peti­tioners moved a recall application which is pending and the matter is still subjudice. It is further pointed out that since the land in dispute has been acquired in the 2008 by Greater NOIDA Authority and in the garb of the orders passed in proceedings under sec­tion 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the respondents No. 3 to 5 are trying to receive the compensation. 3. In reply, it has been submitted by Sri Udayan Nandan, learned Counsel for the respondents that once the suit under section 229-B of the Act filed by the peti­tioners in respect of the land in dispute was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide order dated 27.10.2005 and the same has attained finality, the proceedings under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which are summary in nature, are of no consequence. He has also produced be­fore me the order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 27.10.2005 dismissing the appeal. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the par­ties and perused the record. 5. It is undisputed fact that suit filed by the petitioners under section 229-B of the Act has been dismissed and the said judgement had attained finality. Once the declaratory suit of the petitioners has been dismissed the proceedings under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act initi­ated at their behest are of no consequence and have rightly been dismissed by the Court below. 6. Apart from above, the Sub Divi­sional Officer as well as Revisional Court have recorded a concurrent finding that in earlier 'Chakbandi' the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was en­tered in the revenue record by manipula­tion and forgery. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 13.5.1954 which is the sole basis of the claim of the petitioners, has never seen the light of the day and it was neither filed in the proceedings under sec­tion 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Court below nor has been brought on record before this Court. 7. Besides, the petitioners are also guilty of concealing the material fact. The petitioners have failed to disclose in the writ petition that against the order dated 12.8.2004 passed by the Trial Court dismiss­ing their suit under section 229-B of the Act, the appeal filed by the them was dis­missed and the recall application was also dismissed. It appears that after the land was acquired by the Greater NOIDA Authority, the petitioners have started all sorts of frivolous litigation just to receive the compensation. 8. Declaratory suit having been dismissed and the judgement having at­tained finality, the petitioners cannot be said to have any right in the land in dispute and the proceeding under section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act has rightly been dismissed by the Court below. 9. In view of above facts and discus­sions, the impugned orders do not require any interference. The petition fails and stands dismissed. Petition Dismissed.