Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63730 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 687 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shamshul Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Divyansh Rai,C.S.C.,Devashish Mitra Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead-Consolidation Officer, Bareilly as respondent no.6 in the array of the parties to the writ petition during course of the day. 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devashish Mitra & Mr. Divyansh Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 and Mr. Satyendra Bhushan Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.3.2023 filed by respondent nos.3 & 4 was registered as Case No.0221 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.202354121300000221 (Dharmendra Singh Tomar vs. Sadil). In the aforementioned appeal, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant that in view of the pendency of Writ- C No.51844 of 2016 as well as interim order passed on 27.10.2016 in Writ-C No.51844 of 2016, the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act be abated. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bareilly vide order dated 10.1.2025 abated the proceeding of Case No.50/428/2023, under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "a writ order or certiorari to quash the order dated 10.1.2025 passed in appeal no.0221 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.202354121300000221 (Dharmendra Sigh Tomar vs. Sadil) by respondent no.2 arising out of proceeding under Section 11 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 10.1.2025 has been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner abating the proceeding of case under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that in view of the pendency of Writ-C No.51844 of 2026 arising out of summary proceeding, the title proceeding initiated under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be abated by the Consolidation Court. He further submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation should be set aside and the proceeding of case under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act i.e. Case No.50/428/2023 should be decided on merit in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Devashish Mitra & Mr. Divyansh Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 submitted that against the order dated 10.1.2025 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the remedy of revision is available, as such, the instant petition cannot be entertained. They further submitted that the appellate jurisdiction has been rightly exercised by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as such, no interference is required in the matter. They further submitted that the objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioners has been illegally entertained by the Consolidation Officer, as such, the appellate jurisdiction was exercised by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in proper manner. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioners along with the prayer for condonation of delay was pending after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act and in appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the private respondents, the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been abated due to pendency of Writ- C No.51844 of 2016. There is also no dispute about the fact that Writ-C No.51844 of 2016 has been decided by this Court vide order dated 15.4.2025 permitting the petitioners of the instant petition to pursue his proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with law. 8. Since, Writ-C No.51844 of 2016 arising out of summary proceeding has been finally decided by this Court vide order dated 15.4.2025, as such, there is no hindrance to decide the title proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act against the basic year entry by the Consolidation Officer in accordance with law. 9. So far as the argument advanced by learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 that in view of the alternative remedy against the appellate order, the writ petition filed by petitioners is not maintainable, it is material to mention that Writ-C No.51844 of 2016 arising out of summary proceeding pending before this Court has been finally decided by the separate order of this Court dated 15.4.2025, as such, in place of relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of revision, the instant writ petition should be decided on merit as the title objection, under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act has not been decided on merit by Consolidation Officer in accordance with law. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the order passed by this Court dated 15.4.2025 in Writ-C No.51844 of 2016, the impugned order dated 10.1.2025 passed by respondent no.2 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 11. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted back before respondent no.6/ Consolidation Officer, Bareilly to register the title objection (Case No.50/428/2023, Shamshul Khan & Others vs. Dharmendra Singh Tomar and Others), under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on its original number and decide the same after framing issues in pursuance of the earlier order of the Consolidation Officer dated 23.3.2023, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no.6. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad