HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 916 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Vijay Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of State-respondent No.s 1 and 2. 1. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to an old gata No.33 situated at Village Suhelawa, Tehsil - Payagpur, District Bahraich which was recorded in the name of Raj Pata who had executed a registered will deed in favour of Raj Bahadur son of Ram Samokhan (opposite party No.6) on 12.1.1984 and on the basis of the aforesaid documents the land was mutated in his favour on 30.11.1984. 3. Against the order dated 30.11.1984 restoration application was filed which was dismissed on 11.6.1985 and the said order became final. It has been submitted that after 12 years another application for restoration has been filed on 10.6.1985 before the Tehsildar which has been allowed by means of order dated 20.12.2002, against which opposite party No.6 has filed revision before Additional Commissioner under Section 219 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which 4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Prakash Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Urmila Devi .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bahraich And Others .....Respondent(s) was allowed on 8.3.2006 and the order dated 20.12.2002 was set aside. It is after the aforesaid order was passed that Raj Bahadur executed a sale deed in favour of Ori Lal, Krishna Kumar and Urmila Devi (the petitioner). and in 2006 name of the petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records on 11.4.2008. The present dispute has arisen on commencement of the consolidation proceedings where Ram Autar, Babadeen Faujdar and Madhoram moved objections under Section 9 A (2) of U. P. C. H.Act. In the proceedings, the petitioner had also appeared and filed his objections regarding maintainability. It is in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer that by means of order dated 21.12.2023 the matter has been fixed for hearing on 1.12.2023. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2023 had preferred a revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 22.7.2025 providing that objections will be decided by the Consolidation Officer and all the grounds raised by the petitioner can be raised before him and accordingly there is no ground for entertaining the said revision. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Consolidation Officer could not have proceeded in the matter without considering and deciding the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner and he has committed manifest error of law by passing the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 and also that the revisional authority has acted against the provisions of law in this regard and accordingly prayed for quashing of order dated 21.11.2023 as well as revisional order dated 22.7.2025. 7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that firstly vide order dated 21.11.2023 only date has been fixed for final hearing and no order adverse to the petitioner has been passed and accordingly against the said order no revision was maintainable in as much as the same is an interlocutory 8. WRIB No. 916 of 2025 2 order. Apart from the above, he submits that there is no provision of law by which the Consolidation Officer is mandated to decide the preliminary objection before finally deciding the controversy. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute that by means of order dated 21.11.2023 only date has been fixed for final hearing against which the petitioner had preferred a revision which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 22.7.2025. We find that the proceedings are pending before the Consolidation Officer and date has been fixed for hearing during which it is open for the petitioner to raise all the objections with regard to maintainability as well as merits of the controversy. Even if the preliminary objection has been raised by the petitioner the same can be considered at the stage of final hearing of the case and the issue pertaining to delay in filing the said objections is a question of fact and law which can be appreciated only after adequate material is available on record and the same can be adequately considered at the stage of final hearing and for the aforesaid reasons this Court does not find any infirmity in the orders dated 21.11.2023 and 22.7.2025 and accordingly the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. However, it is provided that the Consolidation Officer shall decide all the issues raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability and merits of the case as raised by him. 11. Subject to aforesaid direction the petition stands dismissed. 12. September 23, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 916 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench