Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37727 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 584 of 2025 Petitioner :- Surendra Bahadur Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Amethi And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri P.K. Singh Vats, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 6. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to rest of the private respondents are dispensed with. 3. By means of present writ petitioner, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 07.04.2025 wherein after hearing all the parties and with the consent of the parties the alienation of the disputed property has been stayed.He has further directed the Settlement Officer Consolidation to hear the matter on merits and also directed that status quo shall be maintained on the said plot and further clarified that there is no restrain on the agricultural use of the disputed land. He has further observed that proceedings U/S 109 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 shall also continue in the meanwhile. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the consent was given by the parties only with regard to alienation of the land but disputes the possession of the private respondents on the said land and submits that on the strength of the order dated 07.04.2025 the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the said property and further stated that the respondents are trying to delay proceedings and to that extent they have filed an application to transfer the said proceedings from the Settlement Officer Consolidation to hear the said matter to any other authority. 5. The writ petition has been opposed by learned counsel for respondents. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed with the consent of the parties and it only directs maintenance of status quo during the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and accordingly all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition can be duly agitated by him before the competent authority hearing the appeal. 6. After hearing rival contention, it is noticed that during pendency, status quo have been directed to be maintained and with the consent of the parties, parties have been restrained from alienating the said land. 7.With regard to the argument of the petitioner that the respondents are disturbing the status quo, it is a disputed question of fact which can be determined by the competent authority hearing the appeal after giving liberty to the parties to adduce evidence in this regard and accordingly such a determination cannot be made in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Apart from the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order which only directs maintenance of status quo during pendency of the appeal. In case the petitioner feel that respondents are delaying the matter he is at liberty to move appropriate proceedings for expediting the proceedings and on making such an application, the competent authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereof. 9. Subject to the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench