JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 3. Under challenge is the order passed by the D.D.C., Sultanpur whereby the revision preferred by the predecessor in interest of private respondent nos.3 to 5 was allowed whereby the order passed by the S.O.C. dated 5.6.2009 was set aside. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute relates to the Khata No.815 which was recorded in the name of father of the petitioner namely Ram Adhar son of Bhaggu. It is urged that upon the commencement of the consolidation operations in the village in question behind the back of the father of the petitioner, an order was passed dated 4.7.1979 by the A.C.O. whereby the name of Arjun, the predecessor in interest of the private respondent nos.3 to 5 was recorded. It is the case of the petitioner that the same is fraudulent inasmuch as Arjun was son of Makku but he with deliberation got his name incorporated as Arjun son of Bhaggu and in this way, the relationship has been completely changed and by projecting himself to be the brother of the petitioner, he claimed rights to the property. 5. It is further urged that the father of the petitioner expired in 1996 and since the petitioner was living in a different State on account of exigency of his service, he was not aware of the aforesaid proceedings. Only when he had come to his village when the father of the petitioner died and thereafter upon making inquiries, the aforesaid fraudulent entry came came to light, hence an appeal was preferred against order dated 4.9.1979 alonwith an application for condonation of delay. 6. It is further urged that S.O.C. by means of the order dated 5.6.2009 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to C.O. for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and permitting them to lead their evidence. 7. This order of S.O.C. dated 5.6.2009 was assailed by Shri Arjun (predecessor in interest of private respondent nos.3 to 5) by filing a revision before the D.D.C., Sultanpur. The D.D.C., Sultanpur by means of the order dated 30.6.2022 allowed the revision setting aside the order passed by the S.O.C.. 8. 7. This order of S.O.C. dated 5.6.2009 was assailed by Shri Arjun (predecessor in interest of private respondent nos.3 to 5) by filing a revision before the D.D.C., Sultanpur. The D.D.C., Sultanpur by means of the order dated 30.6.2022 allowed the revision setting aside the order passed by the S.O.C.. 8. It has further been urged that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 30.6.2022 earlier in Writ -B NO.761/2023, however the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh and it is thereafter that the instant writ petition has been preferred in pursuance of the liberty so granted. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a fraudulent entry was incorporated by Arjun showing himself to be the son of Bhaggu whereas his actual father's name was Makku. 10. it is urged that only as late as in the month of April, 2024, the petitioner could obtain the certified copy of the electoral list relating to the private respondents wherein the name of Arjun has been shown as son of Magghu. It is further urged that on account of this fraudulent incorporation, the private respondents had claimed rights whereas they have no right to the property which actually belong to Ram Adhar the father of the petitioner who had created the property exclusively and Arjun had no right. It is urged that the matter required evidence and noticing the same, S.O.C. had remanded the matter and in light of the controversy which was involved, the D.D.C. committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the S.O.C. In such circumstances, it is urged that the order passed by the D.D.C. requires interference. 11. The court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the material on record. 12. It is not disputed that order dated 4.7.1979 relating to Khata No.815 was passed wherein Arjun got rights into the property. It is also not disputed that Shri Ram Adhar son of Makku did not assail the order dated 4.9.1979 in his life time. Ram Adhar is said to have died on 20.7.1996 and almost for 13 years, the father of the petitioner did not raise any objection. It is also not disputed that Shri Ram Adhar son of Makku did not assail the order dated 4.9.1979 in his life time. Ram Adhar is said to have died on 20.7.1996 and almost for 13 years, the father of the petitioner did not raise any objection. It is only after the death of Ram Adhar that the petitioner instituted the proceedings by filing a time barred appeal before the S.O.C. The S.O.C. by means of the order dated 5.6.2009 noticing that it was a case of co-tenancy and it required the evidence. Accordingly, it set aside the order dated 4.9.1979 remitted the matter to to the court of S.O.C. to determine the controversy and decide the matter afresh after permitting the parties to lead their evidences. This order dated 4.6.2009 when came to be assailed before the revisional court who recorded a finding that the order dated 4.7.1979 was passed which also had the consent and concurrence of Ram Adhar. Had the said order been passed fraudulently without the consent of Ram Adhar, it was open for Ram Adhar to have assailed the said order in his life time. However, admittedly, there was no challenge to the said order in the life time of Ram Adhar. The fact whether the S.O.C. found any illegality in the order dated 4.7.1979 was not indicated with clarity in its order specially when the record of the said case wherein the order dated 4.7.1979 was passed, was not before him. 13. This Court further finds that the controversy as to whether Arjun was son of Magghu or Bhaggu was known to he petitioner when he had filed appeal in the year 1999. Since 1999 till filing of the petition, the petitioner could not gather any evidence worth his name which could prima facie create confidence in any court to come to a prima facie satisfaction that Arjun was not the son of Bhaggu but of Magghu. Even before this Court, no such overwhelming evidence has been brought on record, however the laches in filing the petition including the earlier petition where petitioner was granted liberty to file afresh with proper prayer, pleadings and evidence, yet no such redeeming evidence has been brought before the court. 14. Even before this Court, no such overwhelming evidence has been brought on record, however the laches in filing the petition including the earlier petition where petitioner was granted liberty to file afresh with proper prayer, pleadings and evidence, yet no such redeeming evidence has been brought before the court. 14. In absence of any such clinching document, prima facie, which could upset or create doubt over the findings recorded by the D.D.C has not been brought on record. There has been no explanation whatsoever that Shri Ram Adhar during his life time was either not aware of the order dated 4.7.1979 or that being aware for some reason he could not assail. In absence of any such compelling circumstances, challenge to order dated 4.7.1979 by the petitioner and that too after the death of his father also, does not inspire much confidence specially in view of the fact that the petitioner himself could not bring any such document to prima facie establish his right or that the entry made by Arjun was fraudulently incorporated. 15. In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition, which for the foregoing reasons, is dismissed at the admission stage.