HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 752 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M. A. Khan for the petitioner and Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla for private respondents while Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing counsel appears for the State- respondents. 1. It has been submitted that the dispute pertains to plot No.929 whose new number was allotted as 2079 and 2081 situated at Qasba and Tehsil Payagpur, pargana and District Bahraich. 2. It has been submitted that Ravindra Bikram Singh, great grandfather of the petitioner had executed a registered gift deed of plot No.929 in favour of grandfather of the petitioner namely Kaushalendra Bikram Singh. After death of whom the land was recorded in the name of his widow Smt. Lalli Kumari Devi along with Rudrendra Bikram Singh-father of the petitioner and late Madhvendra Bikram Singh- father of opposite party No.5 who also came in possession to the extent of half share over the plots and after death of father of the petitioner the petitioner came in exclusive possession over the portion of the plots in dispute, adjacent to Gonda- Bahraich Road. 3. The dispute had arisen due to the fact that father of opposite party No.5, according to the petitioner, got a fraudulent entry made over the disputed land in the name of Smt. Shree Kumari - opposite party No.6 without there being right or will or sale deed in her favour and 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Aslam Khan, Mohammad Adil Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shobhit Mohan Shukla Jaiendra Bikram Singh .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) the Consolidation Officer had allotted the chak to opposite party No.6 on plot No.929, new no. 2079 and 2081 only to deprive the petitioner of his property. The petitioner on coming to know about the said order filed his objections under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before opposite party No.3 on 30.9.2021. The said objections were decided and rejected by means of order dated 30.9.2019. While rejecting the said objections he had noted that the petitioner had filed his objection on 30.9.2011 and prior to 30.9.2011 notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act was not issued and consequently the Consolidation Officer was denude of his powers under Section 11 to consider and decide the objections preferred by the petitioner and thereby rejecting the same. 5. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred before Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was also rejected by means of order dated 10.11.2020 and lastly the revision preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by Deputy Director of consolidation vide order dated 13.6.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not contest the fact that on 18.6.2011 notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Ac were issued that objections were filed by the petitioner on subsequent date. He further does not dispute the fact that once notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act was issued then the objections could not have been considered and decided on merits. The consolidation authorities become functus officio once notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act is issued. The only grievance which has been urged before this Court is that the authorities inspite of noticing the fact that the objection preferred by the petitioner at subsequent date after the issuance of notification under Section 52 but sill proceeded to make certain observations on merits. He submits that in case the application was not maintainable then it ought to have been rejected rather than deciding any issue or entering into merits of the aforesaid case. 7. Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, Senior Advocate has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that all the three 9. WRIB No. 752 of 2025 2 orders; dated 27.9.2019 passed by Consolidation Officer, Nanpara, District Bahraich, dated 10.11.2020 passed by Settlement Office of Consolidation, Bahraich and the order dated 13.6.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation do not have any infirmity in as much as they rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his objections were filed after issuance of notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H.Act. It is in aforesaid circumstances that this Court is of the considered opinion that once objections had been filed beyond time and specially after issuance of notification under Section 52 then the authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the controversy and consequently any finding recorded by them would be non-est and of no consequence. 10. In light of the above, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail of other legal remedies available including filing of suit before appropriate court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. 11. September 8, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 752 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench