JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard Sri Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bharat Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order 19.02.2025 passed by the opposite party No.3-Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lucknow in Case No. 3749 of 2022, Computerized Case No. D202210690003749, (Keshav Krishna Vs. Anil Singh and Others), which was instituted under Section 15 -A of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (in short "U.P. Act No.10 of 1953"). The order dated 19.02.2025 reads as under :- 3. Brief facts of the case, as appears from the petition and from the submissions advanced before this Court, are as under : (i) According to the case set forth by the petitioners, in nutshell, in the application preferred under Section 15 -A of U.P. Act No.10 of 1953, is to the effect that the patta of the land in issue under the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 was illegally provided to the respondent no.4/Anil Singh i.e. patta related to Gata No. 793 Rakba 17 Biswa, 0.2150 hectares, Gata No. 2777/1 Rakba 1 Bigha 6 Biswa, 0.2390 hectares and Gata No. 6949 1 Bigha 2 Biswa, 0.2780 hectares situated at Hamlet - Barikhera Mawai, Pargana Maurawan, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao on 05.02.1990. The relevant para 4 of the application on reproduction reads as under :- 4. This Court in the judgment passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas Vs. State of U.P. and Others , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 3938, took note of various provisions of the U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 and the pronouncements related to the same and this Court is of the view that the present case can be decided on the basis of the obsrevations made in the judgment passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas (Supra) 5. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts as also the observations of this Court passed in the case of Sayyed Abbas (Supra) , this Court finds that the present petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. It is for the following reasons : - i) To establish that on 05.02.1990, the respondent no. It is for the following reasons : - i) To establish that on 05.02.1990, the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was a minor, no evidence/document was placed on record by the petitioners before the concerned authority, whose order is under challenge. ii) In the instant petition also the petitioners have not brought any evidence/document based upon which it can be deduced that on 05.02.1990 the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was a minor, as alleged. iii) The electoral roll, relied upon in the petition to establish the fact that the respondent no. 4/Anil Singh was minor, is not a proof of age. iv) The findings in the impugned order is based upon the parivar register which is a statutory document prepared under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules 1970 made under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. v) The averments that other eligible persons were available at the time of providing patta to respondent no.4/Anil Singh i.e. on 05.02.1990, as alleged in the application, this Court is of the view that the said averments in absence of any evidence are completely vague and misconceived. vi) To establish the fact that predecessors-in-interest were in possession over the land in issue, no evidence/document was/is placed on record. vii) The application under Section 15 -A of U.P. Act No.10 of 1953 for cancellation of patta provided on 05.02.1990 was preferred on 15.07.2022 and in this view of the matter, the application was highly belated and ought not to have entertained. viii) Report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, according to which some documents related to patta provided on 05.02.1990 to the respondent no.4/Anil Singh are not available, to the view of this Court, also supports the case of the other side.