HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6827 of 2025 Court No. - 22 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.C. Tiwari, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya in Appeal No. 521 of 2025, computerized case No. 2025042300000521, under Sections11(1) U.P.C.H Act, filed against the order dated 3.9.2025 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against order dated 3.9.2025, passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation Act by respondents No. 2 to 5. The appellate court, after considering the case, stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 3.9.2025, passed by the Consolidation Officer and also directed the parties to maintain status quo on the spot till the decision of the appeal. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order the appellate court erroneously mentioned that as per the statement of learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was also in possession of a part of the land in dispute which prima facie would affect the merit of the case. 3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the appellate court has not recorded any finding regarding possession, but considered Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Gaya Prasad .....Petitioner(s) Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ayodhya And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the case in the light of prima facie merit, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 4. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clear that the appellate court considered the submission of both the parties and on being satisfied that prima facie case was made out from merit, admitted the appeal and stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 3.9.2025 and also directed to maintain status quo on the spot till decision of the appeal. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner has right to raise all his objections during hearing of the appeal. 5. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. December 1, 2025 Vandana A227 No. 6827 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench