JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. 1. Personal affidavit filed today by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri is taken on record. 2. Heard Shubhendu Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for private opposite party no.2, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the material brought on record. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have impeached the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'D.D.C.') in Revision registered as Case No.0068 of 2025, Computerized Case No.202554104300000068, preferred under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953') (Sarju Prasad Vs. Kshatrapal). The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under. 4. Before proceeding in the matter it would be apt to indicate that earlier the petitioners approached this Court by means of Writ-B No.1208 of 2024 (Kshatrapal & others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Division, Lucknow and another). In this petition the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by D.D.C. was challenged. Upon due consideration of the facts of the case including the fact that the order dated 07.02.2024, based upon the compromise, has attained finality, this Court interfered in the matter and set aside the order dated 03.10.2024 vide order dated 05.12.2024 after observing as under. “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is not in dispute that the order dated 7.2.2024 though was made a subject matter of challenge, but that challenge was withdrawn and had attained finality.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. 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. 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. 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.” 5. After the order of this Court dated 05.12.2024, the D.D.C. has passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2025. Relevant portion of which is quoted hereinabove. 6. After considering the facts as pleaded, this Court directed the D.D.C. to file his personal affidavit which has been filed today. 7. Upon due consideration of the facts and material available including the relevant records placed before the Court, the position which borne out is as under. (i) The notification under Section 4 of the Act 1953 regarding initiation of the consolidation proceedings was published on 10.11.2001 in the spirit of Act of 1953. (ii) At initial stage of consolidation proceedings, i.e. at the stage of preparation of Form CH-2A, over Gatas in dispute, i.e. Gata No.5/3 and 5/5 no tree was in existence and thus the aforesaid Gatas were used for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, this form CH-2A was prepared, which indicates that the Gatas in issue were used for cultivation of paddy and wheat. (iii) After preparation of Form CH-2A an application was preferred by the opposite party no.2 for passing appropriate orders excluding Gata no.5/3 area 0.077 hect. And 5/5 area 0.491 hect. from the consolidation proceedings indicating therein that the said land in fact is in the shape of grove (bagh). (iv) Thereafter a report dated 12.07.2004 was submitted. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.P.A.2 to the personal affidavit. This report is extracted hereinunder. (v) From the report, quoted above, it is evident that age of the tree(s) has not been mentioned. (iv) Thereafter a report dated 12.07.2004 was submitted. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.P.A.2 to the personal affidavit. This report is extracted hereinunder. (v) From the report, quoted above, it is evident that age of the tree(s) has not been mentioned. (vi) Considering the report dated 12.07.2004, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 04.04.2005 rejected the prayer of opposite party no.2. (vii) After the order dated 04.04.2005 passed by C.O. two appeals were filed, i.e. Appeal No.2018541064000390 (Sarju Vs. State & others) was preferred challenging the order dated 04.04.2005 and Appeal No.20185410640000344 (Sarju Vs. Kshatrapal & others) was preferred challenging the order dated 07.02.2004. (viii) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sitapur (in short 'S.O.C.') dismissed both the appeals vide order dated 30.10.2021. (ix) The order dated 30.10.2021 was challenged before the D.D.C. by filing revision under Section 48 of Act 1953 registered as Revision/Case no.0068 of 2025, Computerized Case No.202554104300000068 (Sarju Prasad Vs. Kshatrapal). (x) During the pendency of the revision a report was prepared by the revenue official on 28.09.2024 which bears signature of various villagers including the petitioners. The copy of the report is extracted hereinunder. 8. A perusal of report aforesaid would show that in the same it has not been mentioned that on what basis the concerned revenue official came to the conclusion regarding the age of the tree(s) over the Gatas in issue. For the purposes of assessing the age of the tree(s) even statements of the villagers were not recorded. The age of the tree(s) is relevant in the light of relevant statutory provisions including Rule 21(6) as also the entry in Form CH-2A. 9. It appears from the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 that the same has been passed on the basis of the aforesaid report dated 28.09.2024 which to the view of this Court ought not to have been relied upon being completely vague. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds that the interference in the matter is required. As such, the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 challenged in the present petition is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the D.D.C. for deciding the issue involved in the present petition afresh after seeking proper report related to the age of the tree(s) over the land in issue, i.e. Gata No(s).5/3 and 5/5. 11. The petition stands allowed . Cost made easy.