Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43299 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 700 of 2025 Petitioner :- Motiram And Another Respondent :- Addl. Dist. Magisrate, F.R./Deputy Director Of Consolidation,District Balrampur And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in the present case pertains to Gata No. 1644/0.10 hectares and Gata No. 1645/0.05 hectares situated at Village - Bhitwariya Kalan, Pargana and Tehsil - Tulsipur, District - Balrampur. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners aforesaid land is their ancestral land and during consolidation operations said land was also provided to the petitioners and publication under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was made on 05.06.1979 and 31.10.1980, respectively. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that one Shiv Narain filed his objections under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is stated that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) rejected the said objections and respondents thereafter filed an appeal with delay of eight years on 08.09.1991. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has condoned the delay and allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for determination afresh, by means of order dated 22.09.2017. Against the said order petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which revision has been allowed by means of order dated 20.01.2025 and affirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 6. With regard to limitation this Court finds that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has duly considered the aspect of condonation of delay and on being satisfied and after recording his satisfaction has condoned the delay and heard the matter on merits. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded that the Consolidation Officer has not considered the entire facts in their correct perspective and infact has passed an order without any application of mind and remanded the matter back for consideration afresh and that he has not made any spot inspection before deciding the matter. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the revision. 8. Accordingly, from the aforesaid facts this Court do not find any occasion for interference in the matter, specially in the light of the fact that the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter on merits afresh. Before the Consolidation Officer both the parties will be at liberty to adduce all the evidence and establish their claim with regard to the disputed property. 9. In the light of above, writ petition is dismissed. 10. However, it is directed that the Consolidation Officer in the remand proceedings shall conclude the proceedings with expedition, say within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 11. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench