1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16880 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 254 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Samujh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Jai Krishna Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 and perused the record. 2. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by opp. party no. 2 i.e. Dy. Director of Consolidation Shravasti in Revision No. 0376 of 2023 (Computerised Case No. 202354086200000376) U/S 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act Ram Samujh & Others Vs State of U.P. & Others and the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by opp. party no. 3 i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation Shravasti in Appeal No. 0030 of 2019 U/S 21(2) of U.P.C.H. Act as contained in Annexures No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition." 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 21.10.2024, passed by opposite party No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "D.D.C."), Shravasti in Revision No.0376 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.202354086200000376) (Ram Samujh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others), instituted under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act, 1953"), whereby he dismissed the revision, and the order dated 23.02.2023, challenged in the revision, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Shravasti (in short "S.O.C.") allowing the Appeal No.0030/2019 instituted under Section 9 (B) (3) of the Act, 1953 and also the subsequent order dated 22.09.2019 passed by S.O.C. 4. It would be relevant to indicate, at this stage, that after taking note of the fact that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the affected party, i.e. 'State of U.P.' by the Consolidation Officer, the S.O.C. vide order dated 23.02.2023 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22.09.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Ikauna, Shravasti (in short "C.O."), in Case No.18/18-19 (202454086275020300) and the matter was remanded back to the C.O. for deciding the case afresh. 5. It is also relevant to mention here that order dated 22.09.2019, challenged by the petitioner, the prayer for restoring the appeal was rejected by S.O.C. after observing that the case was decided on merits. If an order is passed on merits, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, then in that eventuality the application for recall would not be maintainable as has been held in the Full Bench 2 decision of this Court in the case of Anarkali Vs. DDC 1997 (15) LCD 921 (FB) [Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4393 of 1980]. 6. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed. 7. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts of the case particularly that by the impugned order(s) an opportunity has been given to the 'State of U.P.', who is an affected party, this Court finds that in the matter no interference is required. 8. After taking note of the aforesaid, on being confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner says that without interfering in the impugned order(s), it would be suffice if a direction is issued to the C.O. to conclude the proceedings within time and if such direction is issued then the petitioner shall not take any adjournment before the C.O. 9. Taking note of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of without interfering in the impugned order(s), with a direction to the Consolidation Officer concerned to conclude the proceedings within a maximum period of three months. For concluding the proceedings within the specified time, the Consolidation Officer concerned shall not grant any adjournment to either party. 10. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 25.3.2025 ML/- Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench