HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 820 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Arunendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that a title suit between petitioner and the private respondents was decided on 29.09.2021 by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi against which an appeal was filed U/S 11 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which is pending consideration. It is during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings that the application under Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 has been filed before the Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi. 3. It has been submitted that when the petitioner has moved an application under Rule 109, the respondents have moved an application for transfer of the proceedings under Rule 109 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who on the application itself passed an interim order on 05.08.2025. In the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.08.2025 by which the proceedings under Rule 109 has been stayed. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the said application has been filed under Section 65 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act while there is no such provision in the Act of 1953 and therefore the application itself is not maintainable and ought to have been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arunendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Abhimanyu .....Petitioner(s) Settlement Officer Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others .....Respondent(s) rejected. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that Rule 65 of Consolidation of Holdings rules, 1954 provides for transfer of proceedings from one authority to the other and mere wrong mention of the rules will not render the said application nonest and therefore accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the aforesaid proceedings. 6. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there is specific provision that exists in Rule 65 of Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 and therefore mere wrong mention of the rules will not be sufficient to hold the application to be without jurisdiction. Apart from the above, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the application for transfer is decided expeditiously by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move objections within ten days before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who is further directed to decide the application for transfer within four weeks thereafter by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. 8. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. September 1, 2025 Ravi/ WRIB No. 820 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench