HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 667 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri S. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri M. E. Khan for respondent No.6. 1. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to the property situated at Village Karma Kondri, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya. The order under challenge before this Court has been passe by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.4.2025 where the revision of the private respondents has been accepted and the orders impugned therein i.e. orders dated 25.11.2002 and 8.4.2003 have been set aside and the matter has been remitted back for consideration afresh before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the revisional order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation has submitted that in the meanwhile notification under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1953 has been passed and consequently remand order would be illegal and arbitrary in as much as the consolidation authorities will not have any power to adjudicate the issue in question. 3. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Chandra Prakash Srivastava, Shantanu Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Amarjit And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s) Considering the arguments of the petitioners, it is noticed that despite notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953 the sub clause (2) of said Act further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases of proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1), shall be given effect to by such authorities, as may be prescribed and the consolidation operation shall, for that purpose, be deemed to have not been closed. Accordingly, the revision being continuation of the proceedings wherein the revisional authority has remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation the proceedings shall be deemed to be protected under Section 52 (2) of the Act of 1953 and shall not abate merely on account of notification under Section 52 of the said Act. 4. No other ground was urged by the petitioners in challenge to the impugned orders. 5. Considering the entire material, especially considering that the matter has been remanded back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, there is no ground for interference in the impugned order and accordingly the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 6. However, the appellate authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal, expeditiously, where the parties undertake to cooperate in the said proceedings. 7. September 24, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 667 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench