HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1164 of 2025 Court No. - 22 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tek Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Certiorari' to quash the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, District- Hardoi in case no.0104/2025, Mahaveer Vs. Sohan Lal under section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, contained as Annexure No. 1, with this writ petition." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record regarding gata no.577 on 29.03.1992. Thereafter, objection was filed by the respondent no.2 on 03.08.2009 which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 20.07.2017 on the ground of laches. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by the respondent no.2 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was also dismissed on 17.12.2024. Thereafter, revision was preferred against the order dated 17.12.2024 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who allowed the same, on the ground that original tenure holder, Chaudhary son of Girdhari, who belongs to scheduled caste (caste-chamar) but the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste (dhobhi). Therefore, right should be adjudicated on the basis of merit and ignoring the delay and by allowing the revision by order dated 24.09.2025 remanded the same to the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute on merit, within a period of three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi failed to consider that the objection was filed by the opposite party no.2 after considerable delay Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Karunakar Srivastava, Shiv Sinha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sohan Lal .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others .....Respondent(s) which is not permissible. Therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the present case prima facie case of forgery is in mutation of the name, therefore, delay is not material, matter should have been decided on merit. 5. Considering the aforesaid submission and on perusal of record, it is not in dispute that Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rejected the case of respondent no.2 on the ground of laches, though, there is a serious dispute of title which requires to be adjudicated and same cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order taking into account these facts, remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh on merit, within a period of three months. 6. Therefore, this court does not find any legality in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi. However, it is observed that concerned Consolidation Officer will decide the case in pursuance of order dated 24.09.2025, expeditiously, without being influenced by the observation made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. With the aforesaid observation, present petition is disposed of. December 2, 2025 S.C. WRIB No. 1164 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench