HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1040 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1.Heard Shri Diwakar Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. In light of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondents, is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by leaned counsel for the petitioner that present dispute pertains to Khata No. 29, Gata No. 186 measuring area 3-9-10 (new Gata No. 250 Ka), situated at village Karnaiput, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil (then Sultanpur Sadar) Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur. 4. It has been submitted that initially an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the same was duly considered and allowed by the Consolidation Officer, by means of the order dated 17.8.1987. 5. It has further been stated that the said order was passed on the basis of an agreement which was duly submitted by the petitioner and proved before the Consolidation Officer. Subsequently after long lapse of 11 years the private respondents have filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who had allowed the appeal, by means of order dated 12.8.2021. Against the order dated 12.8.2021 the petitioner had filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, where an order dated 20.9.2025 has been passed, which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present case. 6. It is during the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the record of trial court / Appellate was summoned and on perusal of the proceedings before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation he discovered that two applications for recall were before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation having been moved by one Ms. Sadiya Nisa and Smt. Shahana. On finding that the recall applications were Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Diwakar Prasad Sharma, Neetu Patel Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vansraj .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others .....Respondent(s) pending he has sent the file back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, directing him to dispose of application for recall within a specified period and also directed the parties to appear before him, on 25.9.2025. Pursuant to which, he has further directed and transmitted back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision preferred by the petitioner. 7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the revision preferred by the petitioner is still pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it is only on account of the fact that certain applications were still pending adjudication at the level of Settlement Officer, Consolidation, he has remitted the matter back for a limited purpose, before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 8. Accordingly, I do not see as to how the order dated 20.9.2025 is adverse to the petitioner and he also does not dispute the fact that his revision is pending consideration before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and no order adverse to the petitioner has been passed so far. Therefore the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.09.2025. 9. In light of the above, no interference is required to be made by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India the petition is dismissed. However, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation may proceed to consider and decide two recall applications which were pending before him, pursuant to the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation with expedition, say within a period of four weeks, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in accordance with law. November 19, 2025 Muk WRIB No. 1040 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench