HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1112 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing counsel n behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2. 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. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that gata No.530 situated in Village- Patti Rahas Kaithwal, Pargana Salon, Tehsil Unchahar, District Raebareli was recorded in the name of his grandfather, namely, Badri son of Vishesar while his name also figured in gata No.422. It is stated that the present dispute has arisen on account of the fact that Onkar son of Gomti got his name fraudulently mutated in gata No.530 relating to 1363 to 1365 fasli without there being a valid sale deed or a gift deed. 4. The Consolidation Officer had decided the said controversy in favour of the petitioners by means of order dated 12.1.2010 but on an appeal made before Settlement Officer of Consolidation by the private despondent the order dated 12.1.2010 was set aside and the matter was remanded back for decision afresh. The Settlement 5. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Krishna And Others .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Raebareli And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Officer of Consolidation by means of his order dated 4.8.2014 had recorded that name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was got mutated over gata No.530 and 422 without any evidence or inquiry, therefore, it has to be determined whether it was a case of double entry or that he was legally entitled to the said land. Apart from the above, certain other objections were filed with regard to gata No.819 and in his regard also he found that there was no substantial materiel available on record due to which he had remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the revision of the petitioner has upheld the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 6. The petitioner has assailed the orders of Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as order of Deputy Director of Consolidation in the present case. 7. We have perused all the impugned orders and found that there is no infirmity in the observations recorded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation with regard to double entry in gata No.s 530 and 422. Apart from the above, in the facts as narrated by him, there was substantial material with regard to gata No.819 so that all the applications could be decided in accordance with law and he had rightly remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh consideration. 8. The only ground urged by the petitioner is that the dispute is pending for more than 26 years and it will further get delayed in case the matter is remanded back to the Consolidation Officer and it is in the aforesaid circumstances it is prayed that impugned order be set aside. We find that no interference is called for in the present case in as much as there is no infirmity with regard to the facts and observations recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in remanding the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for decision 9. WRIB No. 1112 of 2025 2 afresh. Accordingly, in the remand proceedings, the Consolidation Officer shall proceed to decide the controversy with expedition, say within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him, in accordance with law. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the said proceedings and shall not take unnecessary adjournments. 10. Subject to aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed. 11. November 24, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 1112 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench