HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 890 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. 2. In view of the order proposed, notice to Respondents No. 4 to 7 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The petitioner, through captioned writ petition, has challenged the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Balrampur in Case No. RST/0088/2025 (Brij Raj Singh Vs. Mujeeb Ahmad), whereby notice has been issued to the petitioner inviting his objections and hearing on the application filed by the Gram Sabha, Balrampur (Dehat) and the State Government under Rule 109 A (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1954"). 4. Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the matter in respect of the title of the land in question had already been settled way back in the consolidation proceedings and now an attempt has been made to reopen the issue and any how to dispossess the petitioner from the land-subject matter of the dispute. He further submits that the petitioner apprehends that even if he will raise objections regarding maintainability of the application filed under Rule 109 A (3) of the Rules Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s ) : Shyam Mohan Pradhan Counsel for Respondent(s ) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Mujeeb Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Collector, Balrampur And Others .....Respondent(s) of 1954 that may not be decided and straightaway the decision may be rendered on the merits of the matter directly affecting the rights of the petitioner in respect of his title of the land in question. He has also submitted that in all the proceedings, which took place at earlier point of time in respect of the settlement of title of the land, Gaon Sabha never participated at any stage and now after long lapse of time, straightaway an application has been filed under Rule 109 A (3) of the Rules of 1954. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Gram Sabha have very fairly submitted that this writ petition is based on sheer apprehension of the petitioner that he will not be heard and his objections regarding maintainability of the application will not be decided by the authority concerned. They further submit that if the petitioner will raise objections regarding maintainability of the application filed under Rule 109 A (3) of the Rules of 1954 and the objection regarding jurisdiction, same shall be considered and decided before proceeding to decide the matter on merits. 6. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Gram Sabha has also submitted that the argument of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in respect of jurisdiction of the authority, is misconceived as Section 11 -C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that if the objections by the Gram Sabha were not filed during consolidation proceedings, the same can be filed at any stage. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that since the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Balrampur had issued only notice to the petitioner on the application filed under Rule 109 A (3) of the Rules of 1954, the apprehension of the petitioner that his objection, regarding maintainability of the application and jurisdiction of the authority to deal with the application, will not be heard, is unfounded. I also find that the counsels appearing for the respondents have very fairly submitted that if any objection is raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the application and jurisdiction of the authority, the same shall be considered and decided first and thereafter the matter would be decided on merit. WRIB No. 890 of 2025 2 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file objections against the application filed under Rule 109 A (3) of the Rules of 1954 and may also raise objection, if any, regarding jurisdiction of the authority concerned within three weeks from today and if any such objection is filed regarding maintainability of the application and jurisdiction of the authority, the same shall be considered and decided by passing speaking and reasoned order at the earliest and only thereafter the matter shall be decided on merits. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and it shall be open for the authority concerned to consider and decide each and every aspect of matter, strictly in accordance with law. September 16, 2025 Anuj Singh WRIB No. 890 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench