HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4746 of 2025 Court No. - 39 Sl. No. 231 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shiv Sagar holding brief of Shri Rahul Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents no. 34 and 4, Shri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Shri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of the order dated 6.3.2025 whereby the reference under section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been approved by the Dy. Director of Consolidation-respondent no. 2 and subsequently on a restoration application filed by the petitioner herein, the same was also rejected by the order dated 28.8.2025 despite there being a settlement/compromise between the parties. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents no. 3 and 4 are the owners of an agriculture property/chak in which the respondent no. 3 and 4 were having their shares. The said respondent no. 3-Chunbad has sold some portion of his share i.e. 1/2 of the said property. Thereafter the mutation applications were filed and the directions were issued to prepare the chak accordingly on the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that some error Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, Vimal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Achal Singh, C.S.C., Rahul Kumar Yadav, Shambhu Nath Pandey Aakanksha Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) has occurred while constructing the chaks of the petitioner as well as the respondents no. 2 and 3. Thereupon the petitioner and the respondents no. 3 and 4 have entered into a compromise and a restoration application was filed, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 28.8.2025 on the ground that the same being time barred. Since there was no dispute between the petitioner and the respondents no. 3 and 4 therefore the respondent no. 2 ought to have entertained the restoration application and was required to pass the order in accordance with the compromise. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any such circumstances whereby the said compromise cannot be acted upon except the restoration application filed by the petitioner was time barred. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.8.2025 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot with a direction to condone the delay in filing the restoration application and consider the compromise submitted by the petitioner as well as the respondents no. 3 and 4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is disposed of. March 20, 2026 o.k. WRIB No. 4746 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad