Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46288 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 745 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Pandey,Ankur Pathak,Vivek Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The controversy in the present case pertains to succession of the agricultural land which was recorded in the name of Bhola Ahir S/o Phagu. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that Bhola had three sons, namely, Hera Lal, Shri Krishna and Sitaram while the property was duly mutated in the name of Hera Lal and Shri Krishna while the name of petitioner was excluded from being recorded and accordingly, he had moved an application before the Consolidation Officer which was allowed by means of order dated 06.05.2008. 4. Against the order dated 06.05.2008, the private respondents had moved an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who had allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 07.10.2025. While allowing the said appeal, he has clearly recorded that the witnesses were never cross examined and from the record it is evident that oral statements were recorded and found that this was a serious procedural infirmity due to which the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for determination afresh. 5. Against the order dated 07.10.2015, the petitioner had filed a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation who has also rejected the same by means of order dated 05.12.2024. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 05.12.2024 as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 07.10.2015 in the present writ petition. 6. It is noteworthy that the Dy. Director for Consolidation while dismissing the appeal has further recorded that objections were raised by the private respondents that the application of the petitioner itself was not maintainable having been filed after notification was issued U/S 52 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. 7. While on the other hand, the petitioner has contested this fact and stated that the application was filed during the consolidation proceedings but in any view of the matter this aspect of the matter can be decided only in the remand proceedings after the parties are permitted to adduce evidence. It is for the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Dy. Director of Consolidation where they have upheld the remand order issued by the Settlement Officer Consolation. 8. Accordingly, considering the fact that the matter stands remanded to the Consolidation Officer where the parties will be at liberty to adduce evidence and submit all the material enabling him to make a fair decision and decide the contentious issue raised by the parties. In light of the above, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is dismissed. 9. However, it is provided that Consolidation Officer may proceed to decide the case expeditiously, say within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in accordance with law, in case there is no legal impediment. 10. The petitioners undertake to cooperate before in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench