HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 792 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri P. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Tushar Gupta holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupa for respondent No.7. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to rejection of his application for impleadment in proceedings before the Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It has been stated that the dispute pertaining to the property of Smt. Badadki wife of Janki was being contested before the Consolidation Officer. In the said suit the parties thereto had claimed to be relatives on one hand of Kashiram and on the other had claimed their rights through a will. It was stated that initially the land was recorded in the name of Janki who died intestate and after his death the land came to be recorded in the name of Badaki. It was pleaded by the private respondents in the application under Section 12 of the Act of 1953 that they had engaged Kashiram to look after the land and accordingly his name was also mentioned in the family register and he had got the land mutated in his name. The petitioner, on the other hand, had moved application for impleadment after lapse of 37 years on 8.2.2019 stating that Badaki had left a will in favour of his mother, namely Smt. Chandrawati. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : P.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Sandeep Kumar Chaudhary .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Balrampur And Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The Consolidation Officer considering the aforesaid facts and also the contentions of the petitioner, rejected the application for impleadment on 15.11.2019 after recording that there was no material on record to indicate hat the petitioner was a necessary party in the said proceedings and also that there was no reason given for the delay in filing the impleadment application and for these two reasons the application was rejected. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer the petitioner preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation who also considered all the aforesaid facts and also found that there was no documentary evidence filed by the petitioner in support of his contentions and also that there was no explanation for the delay and rejected the appeal and similar order was passed in revision by Deputy Director of Consolidation on 29.3.2025. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed assailing all the three orders, namely 15.11.2019, 13.7.2021 and 29.3.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a necessary party to the said litigation and accordinglyhis application for impleadment ought to have been allowed. He has further narrated the relationship with Smt. Badaki and submitted that, in fact, his name ought to have been recorded in the revenue records. 7. When a pointed query has been made to the petitioner as to whether any will has been annexed along with the present writ petition, he has fairly submitted that copy of the will has not been annexed nor produced. We find that even in the petitioner no cogent reason for the delay in filing the application for impleadment has been mentioned. 8. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that in absence of any material indicating hat he is the successor in interest of Badaki, there was no error in the order passed b the authorities below in rejecting the application for impleadment. He further submits that a long delay of 37 years has also not been explained and accordingly supported the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation 9. Having heard the rival contentions it is noticed that the only question WRIB No. 792 of 2025 2 which was considered by the authorities below was with regard to the application for impleadment. While considering the application for impleadment one of the main aspects which has to be looked into by this Court is the rights which is sough to be espoused by the petitioner in the dispute. In the present case, the petitioner claims right in the property of Badaka on account of a will executed by her. Aforesaid facts was submitted in the application but the will was not produced before any of the authorities below clearly indicting that the said will is probably not available and in absence of any will no right accrued in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, no infirmity in any of the orders rejecting the application for impleadment can be found. Apart from the above, the delay of 37 years in filing the application for impleadment is extremely long length of time and has not been adequately explained and hence rightly rejected. 10. Merely because giving the circumstances of existence of a will is no reason to join the said proceedings without explaining the delay caused in filing the application for impleadment Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders rejecting the application for impleadment. The petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed as such. August 28, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 792 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench