HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 689 of 2023 AND WRIT - B No. - 1166 of 2024 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 05.01.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and order dated 05.04.2023, passed by Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nisha Tiwari, Abhishek Misra, Pushpila Bisht, Shreyash Agrawal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pushpila Bisht, Abhishek Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Gurmeet Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri And 20 Others .....Respondent(s) Gurmeet Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri And 20 Others .....Respondent(s) the Consolidation Officer (Final Records - III), Lakhimpur Kheri. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the basic year Khasra land of Khata No. 152 bearing Khasra No. 68, area 0.757 hectares situated in Village - Jasmadhi, Pargana - Pasgawan, Tehsil - Mohammadi, District - Lakhimpur Kheri was recorded in the name of Pholchandra (of whom respondent nos. 4 to 6 are legal representatives), Bateshwar and Chhavinath, whereas land of Khata No. 82 bearing Khasra No. 69, area 0.130 hectares situated in Village - Jasmadhi, Pargana - Pasgawan, Tehsil - Mohammadi, District - Lakhimpur Kheri, was recorded in the name of Jalim, Itwari, Kisanpal, Vijaypal, Hetram and Dwarika Prasad, of whom respondent nos. 7 to 21 are legal representatives. 5. Subsequently, consolidation operations commenced and certain Khata nos. and Khasra Nos. were allotted. The dispute under Section 109A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, came to be decided before the Consolidation Officer, who passed necessary orders on 08.04.2022. The private respondents being aggrieved by order dated 08.04.2022, had preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, perused the orders dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer passed under Rule 109 and also order dated 08.04.2006, where mutation had taken place in the revenue records and found that certain chaks have been altered and the tenure holders were not given opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to law, and it was necessary for him to give opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and he found that order dated 18.04.2006 required interference and accordingly, set aside the order dated 18.04.2006 by his order dated 05.01.2023, and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter afresh after hearing all the parties. 6. It is in the remand proceedings that order dated 05.04.2023 was passed and in the present writ petition writ petition both the orders i.e. 05.04.2023 as well as 05.01.2023 have been assailed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed supplementary affidavit, stating that order dated 05.04.2023 has already been complied by the WRIB No. 689 of 2023 2 Consolidation Officer by passing a fresh order dated 10.08.2023 and accordingly, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court, pertaining to validity of order dated 05.04.2023. 8. Considering the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 05.01.2023, it is noticed that he has remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, after noticing that in the proceedings under Section 109A(2) as well as mutation proceedings, certain chaks have been altered and certain parties have not been heard and it is on this account that he had remanded the matter back. Though, petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as alleged by him, but still learned counsel for the petitioners could not effectively defend the finding that orders were passed by the Consolidation Officer in violation of principles of natural justice. In the aforesaid circumstances, matter ought to have been remanded. 9. Apart from the above this Court finds that rights of the petitioners are not prejudiced in any manner by order dated 05.01.2023, inasmuch as matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer, who will hear all the parties including the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. 10. Accordingly, this Court do not find any ground for interference in the order dated 05.01.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Apart from the above, this Court has noticed that order dated 05.01.2023 has been recalled by the Consolidation Officer and remand proceedings are pending before the Consolidation Officer. It is expected that the Consolidation Officer shall pass necessary orders after giving liberty to all the parties including the petitioners in accordance with law and then pass necessary orders. 11. Subject to above directions/observations, no interference is required. The writ petition stands dismissed. August 28, 2025 A. Verma WRIB No. 689 of 2023 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench