JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2, caveator. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to correct the array of the parties and describe the respondent no.1 appropriately. 3. Oral request is permitted and the learned counsel for the petitioners shall carry out the necessary corrections during the course of the day. 4. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that in view of the issue involved in the instant petition, the matter may be heard at the admission stage itself and learned counsel for the private respondent, Shri A.K. Mishra further submits that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit. 5. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at the admission stage. 6. Under challenge is the order dated 3.10.2024 passed by the D.D.C., Lakhimpur Kheri whereby the revision filed by the respondent no. 2 has been allowed, as a result thereof, an order has been passed that land of plot nos. 5/3 measuring 0.077 hectares as well as 5/5 measuring 0.491 has been excluded chak out from the consolidation proceedings. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially, the petitioners and the private respondent no. 2 had entered into a settlement before the A.C.O. and the proceedings were decided in terms of the compromise dated 7.2.2024, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2. It is further submitted that the private respondent no. 2 had filed his objections indicating therein that plot nos. 5/3 and 5/5 may be kept out of the consolidation operations as there was a grove and bushes on the said land. The same came to be dismissed by means of order dated 4.4.2025 which was assailed by the private respondent no. 2 by filing an appeal before the S.O.C. The appeal of the private respondent no. 2 was also dismissed by means of order dated 30.10.2021 which was further escalated before the D.D.C. who has allowed the same. 8. The same came to be dismissed by means of order dated 4.4.2025 which was assailed by the private respondent no. 2 by filing an appeal before the S.O.C. The appeal of the private respondent no. 2 was also dismissed by means of order dated 30.10.2021 which was further escalated before the D.D.C. who has allowed the same. 8. The submission is that once the order dated 7.2.2024 remained intact as the challenge made to the said order came to be not pressed before the S.O.C., therefore, there was no reason why the revision could have been allowed. Moreso, when there was no proper spot inspection and there were some trees which were quite old and present at the land in question. In this context, the D.D.C. has allowed the revision keeping plot nos. 5/3 and 5/5 out of the consolidation operations. It is urged that this could have only been done, once the order dated 7.2.2024 was set aside but the said order dated 7.2.2024 has not been disturbed. Moreover, this itself was not an issue before the D.D.C. as the private respondent before the S.O.C. had not pressed his appeal in this regard. Accordingly, the D.D.C. could not have entered into a controversy which was not before it, hence, the order impugned is not sustainable and per se illegal. 9. Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.2 made a valiant attempt to defend the said order. However, a query was put to him as to how the order could be justified, once the order of compromise dated 7.2.2024 was not under challenge, rather the challenge was given up and it had attained finality. It has been urged by Shri Mishra that despite the aforesaid, if at all, the issue is considered and there were trees standing on the plot in question which was in the shape of grove, hence the same ought to have been kept out of consolidation operations. 10. Having considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the order dated 7.2.2024 though was made a subject matter of challenge, but that challenge was withdrawn and had attained finality. 10. Having considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the order dated 7.2.2024 though was made a subject matter of challenge, but that challenge was withdrawn and had attained finality. Once the said plot holders had already arrived at a compromise amongst themselves without a direct challenge to that, the D.D.C. was not justified in allowing the revision. From perusal of the order dated 3.10.2024, there is no reference regarding the fact of the said compromise and how it would impact the rights of the parties including the right of the private respondent no.2 to maintain the revision in the first place. 11. Since these crucial issues have not been considered by the D.D.C, accordingly, the order dated 3.10.2024 could not be passed and is, accordingly, not sustainable in law and is consequently set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the court of D.D.C. concerned who shall after hearing the parties decide the revision afresh taking note of all the previous litigation including the impact of the order dated 7.2.2024 as well as the submissions made by the parties, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the D.D.C. 12. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed . Consequently, the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 stands set aside. The parties shall appear before the D.D.C. concerned on 20.12.2024. Costs are made easy.