Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36882 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 548 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harish Chandra And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Addl. Distt. Magistrate Akhimpur Kheri And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Yadav,Aman Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Aman Agarwal, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. By means of present writ petition, the the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation / Additional District Magistrate, (Finance & Revenue), Lakhimpur Kheri wherein he has allowed the revision preferred by the private respondents and remanded the matter back to be considered fresh by Consolidation Officer. 4. While allowing the said revision, the Dy. Director of Consolidation has discussed the order-sheet in great detail and he has returned a finding that on the notice issued to the respondents after fixing date for 01.09.2020 a line was drawn and another dated 22.09.2020 has also been endorsed. He has stated that in fact notice for hearing for 01.09.2020 was issued and in the notice 22.09.2020 was not even mentioned. He further stated that even if it is believed that the case was directed to be listed on 22.09.2020 then on the previous date i.e. 28.08.2020 how the notice was summoned has also not been detailed in the order. It seems that on 22.09.2022 the matter was further adjourned to 17.12.2020 on which date the matter was heard and decided. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant has stated that they were not aware of the fixing of the said date and consequently could not participate in the proeedings before the Consolidation Officer. Even otherwise, the Dy. Director of Consolidation has only remanded the matter for fresh consideration before the Consolidation Officer and directed him to conclude the proceedings within three months. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that even after expiry of nearly six months the matter has not been decided. 7. Accordingly for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the said matter. Considering that the matter is only remanded to the Consolidation Officer and also considering the fact that six months has already lapsed, the Consolidation Officer is directed to conclude the proceedings in the matter in accordance with law, if possible, within next three months. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench