JUDGMENT Manish Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the appellate order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2-Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sultanpur and the impugned revisional order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was granted patta of the land of Gata No. 384, 386 & 387 Minzumla by the Land Management Committee on 30.06.1963 as the grandfather of the petitioner late Harpal was in possession of the said land as grove and over the said land, thirty three trees were standing, which were planted by them and since then the petitioner is in the possession. 4. It is further submitted that the Consolidation Officer had passed an order on 17.11.2012 in case No. 2256 and it was wrongly directed to record the name in khata No. 293 on Gata No. 384 minzumla admeasuring 0.09 hectare and Gata No. 387 admeasuring 0.013 hectare. The order was thereafter modified by the Consolidation Officer on the application of the petitioner that the land of Gata no. 293 has been wrongly recorded in category-IV. 5. It is further submitted that the application of Gram Sabha for recall of the order and restoration of Gata number in the name of Gram Sabha was allowed by order dated 12.09.2017 and in pursuance thereof, the entry has been made in the revenue records in favour of Gram Sabha on 24.05.2019. 6. It is further submitted that after recording the land of petitioner in favour of Gram Sabha, the petitioner has preferred a revision under Section 48 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.12.2023. 7. It is further submitted that revisional authority without considering the order of the Consolidation Officer has passed the impugned revisional order depriving the petitioner from his lawful claim ignoring completely that the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1963. 8. 7. It is further submitted that revisional authority without considering the order of the Consolidation Officer has passed the impugned revisional order depriving the petitioner from his lawful claim ignoring completely that the patta was granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1963. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gram Sabha have submitted that there is an over-writing and cutting on the lease/patta alleged to be issued in the year 1963 produced by the petitioner at the revisional stage just for the purpose that prior to the year 1969, there was no requirement of prior approval by the Sub Divisional Magistrate for grant of patta under Section 195 and after 1969, without prior approval of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the patta cannot be granted that is why, the cutting has been made otherwise it appears that the alleged patta was granted in the year 1970, if at all, it was granted in favour of the petitioner. 9. It has also been pointed out that in the present petition age of petitioner is mentioned as 66 years, then, he would have been about 6 years i.e. minor in the year 1963 when the alleged patta was granted in his favour and patta cannot be granted in favour of a minor. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that that appellate and revisional authority had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue record on Gata No. 384 & 387 in khata no. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that that appellate and revisional authority had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue record on Gata No. 384 & 387 in khata no. 293 by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.02.2013 on the basis of patta granted in his favour but no date of allotment of patta in favour of the petitioner has been mentioned in the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 27.02.2013 and the khasra Bandobasht Doyam and copy of Khasra Bandobasht Awwal was perused wherein it was found that in the khata No. 293 the name of the revisionist/petitioner is entered on the land which comes under Category IV and the order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer on 12.09.2017 to enter the land in favour of Gram Sabha and there is an overwriting in the date of patta dated 30.06.1963 which has been produced at the revisional stage, which was found to be suspicious. 11. On being asked specifically from the learned counsel for the petitioner that what are the grounds, pleadings or submissions of petitioner regarding the findings or reasons assigned by the appellate and the revisional authority, as mentioned above, it is submitted that there is an order of Consolidation Officer in his favour but unable to dispute the reasons/finding given by the appellate and the revisional authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner and has also not disputed that the patta was produced at the revisional stage. Cutting/overwriting over the date of patta and as the petitioner was minor at the time of granting alleged patta, the same cannot be granted to a minor has neither been disputed nor denied by the petitioner. 12. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, the present petition is devoid of merit hence, dismissed.