JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Dev Kumar Tripathi for the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7.8.2015 by which revision has been allowed and the alleged order dated 24.10.2002 passed in Case No. 108 has been set aside. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that there is neither Case No. 108 was filed nor any order has been passed in it and endorsement made in CH Form 45 relating to khata no. 695 which was recorded in the name of Smt. Laikunnisha wife of Mohd. Irshad is merely a forgery in record. Accordingly he directed to set aside the order dated 24.10.2002. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the date of order is 25.10.2002 as endorsement in CH Form 45 of Smt. Laikunnisha and not as 24.10.2002. Thus there is mistake for setting aside the order. Since the petitioner was impleaded party in the revision as such the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation may cause prejudice to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. So far as Case No. 108 is concerned, it has not challenged by the petitioner. The date of endorsement in CH Form 45 related to the order passed in Case No. 108 is 25.10.2002 which may be a typographical error but in substance the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is that neither any Case No. 108 has been filed nor any order has been passed on it thus entry in CH Form 45 relating to khata no. 695 belonging to Smt. Laikunnisha has been deleted. In such circumstances, right of the petitioner, if any, is not affected in any way. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.