Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36952 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6133 of 2025 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Raj Singh Yadav,Digvijai Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Desh Raj Singh, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the residents of village Khanipur, Pargana Srinagar, Tehsil Sadar, District Lakhimpur which is adjacent to village Kusepa Pargana Tambaur Tehsil Laharpur, District Sitapur. It is submitted that because both the villagers are adjacent to each other and on account of river changing its course the boundaries are constantly changing and therefore any consolidation proceedings which are initiated should be conducted simultaneously in both the villages. This aspect of the matter was raised previously before this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.43 of 2005 (Consolidation) whereby by means of order dated 24.01.2005, the following order was passed. "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel representing the opposite parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is dispute in regard to boundaries between villages Khanipur of district Lakhimpur and Kusaipa of district Sitapur and unless that dispute is resolved, the consolidation is not possible in village Khanipur. It appears that the Government too admits the boundary disputes between the aforesaid two villages and has written a letter to the Consolidation Commissioner for initiating consolidation proceedings in village Kusaipa also, but no notification in this regard has so far been issued. The learned standing counsel prays for and is allowed a week's time to seek instructions in the matter. List this petition on 4.2.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioners have made a representation (annexure-7 to the petition) to the Principal Secretary, Revenue pointing out the anomaly as aforesaid and prays that the opposite party no. 1 be directed to decide the said representation in the meantime. The opposite party no. 1 may in the meantime decide the said representation made by the petitioners." 3. Considering the aforesaid order of this Court, the State Government had cancelled its notification under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with regard to commencing consolidation operations in village Khanipur, District Lakhimpur. It is submitted that yet again the opposite parties are initiating consolidation proceedings in village Khanipur without initiation of similar proceedings in village Kusepa, accordingly a prayer has been made that any order/notification under Section 4 if passed by the State Government, it should pertain to both the villages as stated hereinabove simultaneously. 4. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid prayer 5. In light of above, this petition is disposed of with the direction to opposite party no.4- Commissioner, Consolidation, Lucknow, that in case State is of the view that the consolidation operation have to commence by issuing notification under Section 4 with regard to village Khanipur, then he shall also consider passing a similar notification with regard to village Kusepa, District Sitapur in light of direction of this Court dated 24.01.2005, if there is no legal impediment. . (Alok Mathur,J) Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Renu/- Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench