HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1111 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan and Sri Hanumant Lal Yadav for the petitioners , learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Sharad Nandan Ojha for cateator- opposite party No.13 while Sri Manish Mishra has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.s 19 and 20 and filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 1. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 2. The supplementary affidavit filed today in the court is taken on record. 3. With the consent of the parties the present petition is being decided at the admission stage itself. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the parties that the present dispute pertains to succession of the property of Gata No.s 509/2-1-10, 515- Ka/0-6-10, 515- Ga/0-9-16 and Gata No.497/1-13-1 situated in Village Amsauna, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh of which recorded tenure holders are Mangla Prasad and Dulari Devi. It has been submitted that the said land / portion of the said land was purchased by the petitioners by means of registered sale deed on 5. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hanumant Lal Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Hari Shankar And Another .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And Others .....Respondent(s) 23rd August, 1961, subsequent to which an application for mutation was submitted by the petitioner but before the said application could be decided notification under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act came into force and it is during the consolidation proceedings that the petitioners filed their objection under Section 9 A of the said Act. The said matter was decided in favour of the petitioners by means of order dated 14.2.1995 but subsequently sometime in 2000 an application was given by the private respondents stating that they are entitled to the disputed land being successors of Mangla Prasad and Dulari Devi. The application for recall was allowed by means of order dated 5.8.2013 and in the meanwhile the proceedings of Rule 109 of Consolidation Act which has been initiated by the petitioner were also pending. It is in this background that the application of the petitioner was rejected considering the fact that the orders which was sought to be executed i.e. 14.2.1995, in the meanwhile, had been set aside and the matter is still pending with the Consolidation Officer and no decision on merits has taken place till date. The petitioners assailed the order passed under Rule 109 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation and in the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged orders dated 14.8.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 12.8.2024 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 13.8.2015 passed by Consolidation Officer. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and found that there is consensus that the matter is pending at the stage of Consolidation Officer where the claim of the petitioners and the respondents is before him and yet to be adjudicated. The parties have agreed that they did not have any objection in case the matter is remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to consider and decide the application for mutation preferred by the petitioners under Section 9A 2 where the respondents are now also the parties. We have further been informed that in the meanwhile certain parties have expired and, 7. WRIB No. 1111 of 2025 2 therefore, it would be necessary for the petitioner to move necessary substitution application before the Consolation Officer. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, with the consent of the parties the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 14.8.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 12.8.2024 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation are set aside. 8. The matter is remanded back to Consolidation Officer to decide the application for mutation preferred by the petitioners expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. The parties will be at liberty to raise all the objections and arguments in their defence before the Consolidation Officer. 9. Till final orders are passed, status quo as existing today over the property in dispute shall be maintained by the parties. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into merits of the controversy and all the issues are open to be decided in accordance with law by the Consolidation Officer. 11. November 20, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 1111 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench