Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 158446 (ALL)

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND OTHERS v. SETTLEMENT OFFICER CONSOLIDATION, BAHRAICH AND OTHERS

WRIB/797/2025 · 2025-08-26

Alok Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 797 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri Anurag Shukla along with Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties no.2 to 4, 6 and 7, which is taken on record. 2. I have heard the parties at length. 3. In light of the proposed order, notice to the other private respondents is dispensed with. 4. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich, whereby on the appeal preferred by the private respondents, he has stayed the order impugned before him dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings were initiated under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order so passed on 20.08.2024 by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioners. He has further stated that as per provision of Section 11, the appeal was to be filed within 21 days while the present appeal was filed with a delay of about 9 months. He has submitted that there is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijai Bahadur Verma, Durgesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Manoj Kumar Tiwari And Others .....Petitioner(s) Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bahraich And Others .....Respondent(s) undoubtedly delay in filing of the said application and the delay ought to have been condoned before the respondent could have embarked to pass an interim order in favour of the appellants/opposite parties. He further submits that notices were not issued to the opposite parties in the said appeal but the petitioners no. 1 and 3 on coming to know about the filing of the said appeal have themselves appeared and filed the Vakalatnama. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the fact pertaining to delay and issue of notices. He further submits that in the appeal, the delay has been adequately explained. Accordingly, considering that the entire matter is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and both the parties have appeared before this Court, the matter ought to be finally decided, rather than interfering with the findings recorded on the application for interim relief and prolong the litigation. 7. Accordingly, I find it proper to remit the matter back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation directing to decide the objections preferred by the petitioners which having been raised in the present writ petition inasmuch as the appellate authority is fully competent to decide all the objections which are filed before him. 8. Accordingly, with the consent of the both the parties, the present petition is being disposed of with the following directions. 9. The petitioners are granted liberty to file the objections in the appeal within seven days from today. The respondents shall file their response to the said objections within three days thereafter. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall fix the matter for hearing the objections filed by the petitioners on 10.09.2025. On the said date, both the parties undertake to appear before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and participate in the proceedings, and Settlement Officer of Consolidation is directed to pass necessary orders on the application for interim relief. 10. The interim order dated 15.07.2025 shall continue till 10.09.2025. 11. It is made clear that Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the both the side and pass the reasoned WRIB No. 797 of 2025 2 and speaking order disposing of application for interim relief preferred by the opposite parties as well as the objections preferred by the petitioners. 12. With above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. August 26, 2025 KR WRIB No. 797 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench