HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1156 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. (Order on Application for impleadment) 1. Heard Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner presses the application for impleadment. 3. In view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of application for impleadment, the application for impleadment is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for an is directed to make necessary impleadment in the memo of writ petition during course of the day. (Order on Writ Petition) 1. Heard Sri Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents are dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that present dispute pertains to Gata No. 515Ka /2.821 hectare situate in Village Mehrajpur, Tehsil - Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. It has been submitted that objections U/S 9A(2) of Consolidation of Holding Act was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jay Prakash Singh, Rajesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Chandra Kiran @ Chandra Kiran Mishra .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar And Others .....Respondent(s) filed by one Kamlesh before Consolidation Officer. In the said proceedings, an application for impleadment was filed one Vikas Maurya (newly impleaded party). 4. It is stated that without considering the application for impleadment the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 29.04.2025 passed an interim order as prayed by the applicant therein and accordingly the parties were directed to maintain status quo. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Gata No. 515 was previously numbered as Gata No. 826/1 and during fasli year 1356 to 1359 as well as 1360 the name of Ramnath S/oTimal was recorded. 5. It is the case of the respondent No. 26 that the said land is a pond land and the petitioner is in fact trying to encroach and capture the said land illegally. He has stated that a temple exists on the said land and on the said basis he has moved an application for impleadment. The Dy. Director of Consolidation while considering the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.04.2025 has recorded a fact that the impleadment application is still pending before the Consolidation Officer and further he has also taken into account a regular suit with regard to the disputed land is also pending consideration before the competent court and considering the contentious matter with regard to the nature of land he did not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 and accordingly rejected the revision directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute pending before him with expedition. 6. The only ground urged by learned counsel for petitioner is with regard to maintainability of an application for interim relief by a stranger who is not a party in the said proceedings, the application for impleadment preferred by respondent No. 6was pending and no orders have been passed. 7. From the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, it is evident that the application for impleadment of Vikash Maurya was still pending consideration and without him being impleaded as a party or demonstrating his right, interest or title in the said land the Consolidation Officer has considered and allowed the interim relief application. It is WRIB No. 1156 of 2025 2 undisputed facts from which this Court finds that such an application could not have been considered by the Consolidation Officer and to that extent the order dated 29.05.2025 was illegal and arbitrary. 8. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has considered the facts of the case but has not noticed as to whether such an application was maintainable at the behest of a stranger whose application for impleadment was yet to be decided. Accordingly, this Court finds that the order dated 29.04.2025 as well as 13.10.2025 are illegal and arbitrary and accordingly set aside considering the fact that the nature of land is disputed where on one hand petitioner claims to be the recorded tenure holder since fasli year 1356, while on the other hand the respondents are claiming it to be a Talab, I do not find any infirmity to the extent that parties have been directed to maintain status quo. Thus even while setting aside both the orders, this Court directs the parties to maintain status quo till the matter is finally decided by the Consolidation Officer. Further the Consolidation Officer shall proceed to decide the matter with expedition. 9. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate before the Consolidation Officer. 10. With the aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. December 11, 2025 Ravi/ WRIB No. 1156 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench