Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 141 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Awasthi,Sachin Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Sachin Mishra on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. The present writ petition has been by the petitioners with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by opposite party no.1, order dated 9.6.2022 passed by opposite party no.2 and order dated 19.6.2019 passed by opposite party no.3 as contained in Annexures No.1, 2 and 3 respectively to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3 by directing him to decide the substitution application filed by opposite parties no. 4 and 5 on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (iii) Issue any writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner." 3. The main controversy which has been raised before this Court in the present writ petition with regard to the claim of the petitioner that he is the legal heir of deceased Nankau. The claim has been made by the petitioners on the basis of a will deed executed by Ram Kishun in favour of Rajaram Tiwari. After the death of Ram Kishun, it is stated that one Raja Ram Tiwari took possession of the property and it is during the consolidation proceedings that one Nankau son of Shiv Ratan got his name recorded on the basis of succession claiming himself to be the legal heir of Ram Kishun. 4. It has further been stated that when Rajaram Tiwari came to know the said fact that Nankau has been recorded in the revenue record by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Barabanki by means of order dated 20.4.1984. Rajaram Tiwari in the interest of petitioners, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanjki set aside the order dated 20.4.1984 and remanded the matter to decide the objection after taking the evidence of the concerned parties. 5. It is during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding the land c0ntinued to be recorded in favour of Nankau, who in the meanwhile is alleged to be died issue-less. It is at this stage that an application of substitution was made by Ram Chander son of Hanoman (opposite party no.4) on the basis of will deed executed by Nankau. It is the application was decided on 1.3.2005 ordering the substitution of name in favour of opposite parties no. 4 and 5 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki. Subsequently without dealing any controversy further the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for deciding afresh. Before Consolidation Officer the issue pertaining to substitution of Nankau was raised again by both the contesting parties and the Consolidation Officer by means of the order dated 19.6.2019 decided the matter in terms of the previous order, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1.3.2005, passed in Revision No. 998, in favour of Ram Chandar stating that in the previous proceedings the said issue stands concluded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki, by means of order dated 1.3.2005. The said order was appealed by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who rejected the appeal and upheld the order of Consolidation Officer relying upon the previous order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki dated 1.3.2005. Subsequently the revision was preferred, which was also rejected on 26.11.2024 affirming both the orders of the courts below. 6. It is aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present petition stating that the issue pertaining to that who is the legal heir of Nankau has yet to be considered and decided on merits and the Consolidation Officer, merely relied upon the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki, passed in Revision No. 998 and the order passed therein on 1.3.2005. He submits that a perusal of the order dated 1.3.2005 would indicate that Jhaggar Lal and Ram Chandra both were directed to be substituted in place of the deceased Nankau. It is a cryptic order without deciding any facts or right of the parties nor in considering the grounds for their respective claims to be substituted in place of Nankau. It is a routine order without clearly deciding the respective rights of the parties to be substituted in place of Nankaru. Both the parties before this Court also do not dispute this fact that the rival contentions as to which of the parties never right to be substituted in place of Nankau was every considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, by means of order dated 1.3.2005. 7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the reliance made by the Consolidation Officer upon an order which does not decide the right of the parties and was clear passed the order in summary manner for substitution of Nankau cannot act as res-judicata in subsequent proceedings where there is a serious contention has been raised with regard to the person who has right to be declared legal heir of Nankau. 8. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him and it was necessary for him to consider the rival contentions and decided the aspect pertaining to the person who would be liable to be substituted in place of deceased Nankau. 9. Accordingly, all the orders in the present petition are illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind and are accordingly set aside. The matter was remitted to the stage of Consolidation Officer who has directed to consider the objections and claims of the petitioners as well as the private respondents and decide the question with regard to the substitution of Nankau. The parties will be at liberty to place all the documents and material before the Consolidation Officer, who shall decide the same expeditiously, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. At this stage again the Consolidation Officer is directed to conclude the proceedings within three months form the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. The parties present before this Court undertake to participate in the proceedings. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench