HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5580 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri G.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned State Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. 2. In view of the order proposed, notice to Respondents No.2 to 48 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia praying therein for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus direction to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad/Ayodhya, District Ayodhya (Opposite Party No. 1) to decide Appeal No. RST/96 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinatter referred to as. "U.P.C.H. Act"), titled Rajkishore & Others Versus Hari Prasad Singh & Others, pending in his Court and fixed for 25.09.2025, expeditiously within a stipulated time frame as may be granted by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice.as contained in Annexure no.1 to this writ petition. Issue any other writ, order, or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. Allow the present writ petition with costs in favor of the Petitioners." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they have filed an appeal bearing No.RST/96 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad (Ayodhya) but the said appeal is pending since 1992 and has not been decided till date. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that keeping the appeal pending since 1992 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad (Ayodhya) amounts to harassment to the petitioners/appellants and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ganga Prasad Mishra, Abhinav Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Tilak Ram Verma And Another .....Petitioner(s) Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad And Others .....Respondent(s) therefore, it is in the interest of justice that this Court may issue a direction to Respondent No.1 to consider and decide the appeal in question, expeditiously, within the time frame fixed by this Court. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 does not have any objection if, a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. 8. In view of the submissions made, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.1, i.e., Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad (Ayodhya) to consider and decide the Appeal No.RST/96 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him, provided there is no legal impediment. 9. Needless to say that this Court has not adjudicated upon merits of the case. September 17, 2025 V. Sinha A227 No. 5580 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench