Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42925 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 684 of 2025 Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Respondent :- District Deputy Director Of Consolidaiton, Shrawasti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Shri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf or the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. In light of the proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti in Case No.0013 of 2019, Durga Prasad vs. Siyaram and others, under Section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. 4. A perusal of impugned order indicates that the revision filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the matter was remanded to him for deciding afresh. 5. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel stating that the present writ petition has been filed after a delay of three years and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches itself. Apart from the above, he stated that the revision of the petitioner was allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding afresh and consequently, the petitioner is aggrieved by this order and the findings have also been recorded in favour of the petitioner and the matter has been remanded. 6. With regard to the delay, there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming apart from the fact that it has been stated that due to illness and financial crisis, the petition could not be filed within time. I do not find any material to support the said ground as the matter like remand, the delay in challenging the order would be fatal to the proceedings. In case, the order of remand is challenged after substantial delay, in all likelihood the revenue proceedings for which specific time period has been prescribed for each authority to decide the matter within 3 to 6 months, a delay of three years would certainly be fatal and extremely long length of time. 7. Accordingly, I find that the present petition suffers from latches. Apart from the above, this Court has also been found that the petitioner is already participating in the remand proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. Once the petitioner has accepted the order of the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti and has appeared in the remand proceedings he would not be entitled to challenge the order of the remand. A person can not be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breathe and in case, he has accepted the order of the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti and appeared before the Consolidation Officer, then same order cannot be assailed by him subsequently before this Court in writ proceedings. 8. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the remand proceedings are pending last three years and no decision has been taken by the consolidation offcer and prays that the remand proceedings may be concluded expeditiously. 9. Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. It is dismissed. However, the Consolidation Officer is directed to conclude the remand proceedings in compliance of the order dated 27.07.2022 expeditiously, say within next three months in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 25.7.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench