Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48153 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 774 of 2025 Petitioner :- Munnu Lal And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Sartaj Ahmad,Mohd. Waris Farooqui-B/M0622/2012 Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Naveen Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Mohd. Waris Farooqui, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Bahraich has passed an order dated 24.06.2016, in favour of petitioners in proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act pertaining to Khata No. 44, by which names of petitioners were entered in the revenue records. The private respondent had moved an application for recall on 04.11.2016 which remained pending and during pendency of application for recall, the private respondent filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Bahraich. During pendency of appeal, respondent's application for recall was rejected by order dated 12.12.2023, against which another appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and both the appeals were clubbed by means of order dated 15.04.2024. 3. The petitioners have raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the first appeal stating that the Consolidation Officer has not finally determined the controversy and it is only during pendency of application for recall that appeal had been preferred by the private respondent. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while rejecting the objections of the petitioners has noticed that in any view of the matter, subsequently, recall application was rejected on 12.12.2023, against which another appeal was preferred within limitation and that appeal would be maintainable and was liable to be heard and issued notices to the petitioners and summoned the trial Court's record by means of order dated 15.04.2024. 4. Against order dated 15.04.2024, revision was preferred by the petitioners which has been rejected on the ground that no interim order or any enforceable order has not been passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), due to which he found that the revision was not maintainable. Apart from the above, he was of the view that entire controversy is pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and in the aforesaid circumstances, revision was not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that now only issue to be decided before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is with regard to validity of order dated 12.12.2023, which is the only issue before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He submits that there is no dispute that appeal against order dated 12.12.2023 was maintainable and even the petitioner admits that order dated 12.12.2023 is only on delay and merits of the matter had not been adjudicated even by the Consolidation Officer. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, it seems that the revision as well as present petition have been preferred by the petitioners only to delay the proceedings and not to secure any ends of justice. 7. Once the matter has been remanded to Settlement Officer (Consolidation), he would only look into the validity of order dated 12.12.2023 and examine as to whether application for condondation of delay was rightly rejected or not and even the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), would not go into the merits of the matter in the appeal, inasmuch as, before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or Consolidation Officer no contention has yet been made on merits of the case nor any party has been given opportunity to lead evidence. 8. Accordingly, present writ petition is wholly misconceived. 9. In the light of above, no ground for interference is made out. This Court finds that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly declined to interfere in the present matter and accordingly present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 10. However, in the interest of justice, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Bahraich is directed to decide the appeal with expedition, say within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. The parties undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Bahraich. 11. In case, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Bahraich finds that application for recall preferred by respondent no. 3 has been wrongly rejected, he shall proceed to pass appropriate orders, remanding the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to determine the matter in accordance with law and in case matter is so remanded, the Consolidation Officer shall further decide the matter with expedition, say within three months from the date copy of order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is produced before him, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench