-1- Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24448 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 382 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajpati And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Pandey,Anurag Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the material available on record. 2. The issue involved in this case is that “whether the application dated 11.07.1986 duly supported by an affidavit for recall of order dated 08.03.1976 moved after about 10 years was rightly allowed by Consolidation Officer (in short 'C.O.') vide impugned order dated 03.12.2018 affirmed by impugned order(s) dated 19.10.2022 and 06.03.2024 passed by respondent no.2 and 1, respectively”. 3. The present petition has been filed seeking the following main relief:- "[I] Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.003.2024, 19.10.2022 and 14.06.2021 as well as dated 03.12.2018 passed by the opposite party no.1 to 3 as contained in annexure no.1 to 4 to this writ petition. [II] Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the opposite parties not to proceed the proceeding pending before the opposite party no.3 arises from the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the opposite party no.3." 4. Vide order dated 03.12.2018 the C.O.-opposite party no.3 allowed the restoration application dated 11.07.1986 which was filed along with an affidavit. This application was filed for recall of order dated 08.03.1976. The contents of application dated 11.07.1986 are extracted hereinunder. -2- "fouez fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ csflyflys ukSdjh lqyrkuiqj esa jgrk gSA izkFkhZ dks lEcfU/kr fookfnr Hkwfe ds okor lgh&lgh vfHkys[k fey pqds gS izkFkhZ cjkcj ;g le>rk jgk fd fookfnr Hkwfe izkFkhZ ds uke iwoZor ntZ pyh vk jgh gS fdUrq vlkZ yxHkx 2 ekg gqvk lqnqj us ,d izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr dk;nk 109 tks0 p0 v0 fn;kA tc izkFkhZ dks lwpuk x;h vkSj ogka ij vkdj irk yxk;k rks irk pyk fd lqnqj us vius i{k esa dksbZ vne iSjoh vkns'k izkIr dj fy;k gSA fofnr jgs fd fnukad 25-6-86 ds iwoZ izkFkhZx.k mDr vne iSjoh vkns'k dh ys'kek= Hkh tkudkjh ugh Fkh tkudkjh gksus ds ckn leqfpr jk; ysus ds i'pkr vkt izkFkhZ vfoyEc cktnk;jk izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj jgk gSA ;g fd vne iSjoh vkns'k ds fnu izkFkhZx.k dks eqdnesa dh tkudkjh ugh Fkh lqnqj us NnWeos'kh dk;Zokgh djkdj vne iSjoh vkns'k vius i{k es izkIr dj fy;k gS tks fdlh Hkh n'kk esa U;k; laxr ugha gSA izkFkhZx.k ,dek= vKkurk ,oa Nn~eos'kh dk;Zokgh ds dkj.k vUnj fe;kn oktnk;jk izkFkZuk i= ugha izLrqr dj ldsA vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks /kkjk 5 fe;kn dkuwu dk Qk;nk nsrs gq, mDr vne iSjoh vkns'k fujLr djds eqdnes dk fuLrkj.k xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij djus dh d`ik djsaA" 5. From the contents of the application, it is evident that the applicant came to know about the order dated 08.03.1976 on 25.06.1986 for which an application was preferred under Rule 109A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rule, 1954 and framed under U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules 1953 by Sudur, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Thus, the application dated 11.07.1986 for recall of order dated 08.03.1976 was moved within the limitation prescribed. 6. At this stage, reference can be made to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of D. Saibaba Vs. Bar Council of India & another, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 186: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 629 as also the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Lucknow passed in Writ -B No.294 of 2024. 7. Taking note of the observations made in the judgment referred above, this Court finds that C.O. has not committed any error in allowing the application for recall dated 11.07.1986 as the same was filed within the limitation from the date of knowledge of order rejecting the objection vide order dated 08.03.1976. 8. It would be apt to indicate that from the records available before this Court, it is apparent that the objection of Ram Sunder was dismissed for want of prosecution on 08.03.1976 by the C.O. in the case which was -3- pending before it after order passed in Appeal No.856 dated 09.04.1974 and the dispute between the parties related to the claim over land in question. In nutshell the dispute is of title, which requires proper adjudication. 9. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 10. Taking note of the period of pendency of the dispute, the C.O. is directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed in the case, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. Order Date :- 29.04.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench