Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46692 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 757 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Malti Devi Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Officer, Shrawasti And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Tripathi,Saniya,Sanjay Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Head learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12-11-2024 and 24-12-2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the order dated 17-4- 2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of Gata No. 50, area 0.1930 hectares, situated at village Imalia Narain, Pragana Bahraich Tehsil Jamuinaha, District Shrawasti. While opposite party no.2 has filed a case under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, but the petitioner, in the said proceedings, has filed her objections and has moved 9A(2) for correction of the map wherein notices were issued to the petitioner, who has appeared and filed her objections to the said proceedings. It is in the aforesaid proceedings that the Consolidation Officer, by means of order dated 19-3-2024, has asked for a report with regard to the old Gata numbers of the disputed property. The petitioner had filed an application for recall of the order dated 19-3-2024 and the application for recall was disposed of holding that the objections would be decided at the time of final decision in the matter. 4. By means of order dated 12-11-2024, the report of the Chief Tracer was taken on record, but again the application of recall of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner only wishes to keep the matters pending and is seeking to file application for recall against every order. The order dated 12- 11-2024 was assailed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has been rejected by means of the order dated 17-5-2024. While rejecting the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has noticed that the entire controversy is pending before the Consolidation Officer, where the petitioner would have adequate opportunity of hearing and by repeatedly moving applications of recall, it seems that the petitioner is only seeking to keep the proceedings pending, and after recording the aforesaid has rejected the revision. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she has not been granted an opportunity of hearing before the Consolidation Officer before passing of the said orders and it is for this reason, she has filed the application for recall, and subsequently, the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and seeks to assail the orders impugned in the present. 6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand opposed the petition and submits that no adjudication has yet taken place in the present matter and the entire controversy is pending before the Consolidation Officer where the petitioner would have adequate opportunity of placing all the materials on record and her submissions in regard to the same and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that no case lis been decided till date by the Consolidation Officer, and only procedural aspects of the matter have taken place, while the details of the property and certain documents have been filed by the authorities concerned. There is no doubt that the petitioner has put in appearance and also filed her objections to the application under Section 9A(2) preferred by the private respondent. It is noticing the aforesaid facts that the revisional authority has rejected the revision after recording the fact that the petitioner can raise all the objections before the Consolidation Officer and adduce evidence in support of her contentions. This Court also considers that there is no infirmity in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation inasmuch as against the petitioner, who is already participating in the proceeding pending before the Consolidation Officer, would have full opportunity to rebut the submissions made on behalf of the private respondent and also to lead evidence to buttress this case before the Consolidation Officer. 8. In light of the above, no interference is called for in the orders impugned. The petition is berefit of merits and is hereby dismissed. However, the Consolidation Officer is directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same within a maximum period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceeding before the consolidation officer. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 11.8.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench