Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45299 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 714 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satyapal Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maneesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Umeshwar Pratap Pandey,Vipul Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. (Order on C.M.A. No. 3 of 2025) 1. Heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No. 4 in person, Sri Maneesh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. In view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of application for withdrawal of Vakalatnama, the application is allowed. 3. The Vakalatnama filed by Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of petitioners is withdrawn. (Order on writ petition) 1. Heard Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No. 4 in person, Sri Maneesh Singh, Advocate who has filed his Vakaltnama on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 which is taken on record as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation in revisional proceedings U/S 48(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act in revision No. 871/2025. 3. It has been submitted that the said revision was preferred by the petitioners against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.05.2025 wherein the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. the petitioners before the revisional authority had pressed their application for interim relief and prayed staying of the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer, Coloneganj, District Gonda as well as order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki. At the stage consideration of the said application, the respondents in the revision had put in appearance and filed their objections to the application for interim relief. 4. In their objections, it was stated that the revision was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the petitioners had failed to make Yashpal Singh and Rampal Singh as necessary parties despite the fact that in proceedings U/S 9-A(2) of the C.H. Act it was found that two persons were in possession of the said land and would be effected in case any injunction is passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. 5. Apart from the above, it was further stated that the appeal itself was liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability and accordingly the issue of maintainability was also raised before the Dy. Director of Consolidation. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Dy. Director of Consolidation was of the considered view that the objections go to the root of the matter and ought to be decided before the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner can be considered and accordingly has proceeded to reject the application for interim relief by means of impugned order dated 23.07.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer only to the challenge to the order dated 23.07.2025 on the ground that even if the objections are upheld, the consideration on the application for interim relief could have been only deferred rather than rejected at this stage. He submits that in case the preliminary objection raised by respondents were rejected then certainly the application of interim relief could be considered as per the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation himself and accordingly he has committed manifest error by rejecting the application for interim relief. 7. Learned counsel for respondent has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that in the impugned order, the Dy. Director of Consolidation has duly recorded that preliminary objection with regard to revision has been preferred by the respondents which are to the effect that the revision would be liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the parties. Even if the objections are upheld and it is found that the two persons as named by the respondents are necessary parties then also it is a curable defect and petitioners would have adequate opportunity to file an application for impleadment to make the two persons as respondents in their revision but certainly even if the contentions of the respondents are accepted then this Court finds that consideration on the application for interim relief could only have been deferred rather than rejected at this stage. Accordingly, this Court finds that the order rejecting the application for interim relief at this stage is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly requires interference. 9. This Court is of the considered view that certainly the preliminary objections are required to be considered and in case the preliminary objections are rejected then certainly the application for interim relief preferred by the petitioner ought to be considered on merits. Accordingly, the order dated 23.07.2025 is set aside. From the order itself, this Court finds that the matter was listed on 30.07.2025 , let the Dy. Director of Consolidation proceed to consider the preliminary objections as recorded in the order dated 23.07.2025 on the next date and shall consider the application for interim relief after duly considering the preliminary objections preferred by the respondents. 10. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2025 is set aside. The interim relief application stands restored and is liable to be considered at the appropriate stage of the hearing. 11. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench