Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38084 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 704 of 2025 Petitioner :- Akhilesh Tiwari And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to serve the copy of the instructions upon the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondent no.6. 2. Vakalatnama filed by Sri S.N. Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.6 is taken on record. 3. Heard Mr. Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.6, Mr. Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Mr. S.B. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 4. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- "I. Issued a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to respondent/ revenue authority to ensure the implementation of order dated 10-03-1962 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Appeal no.160, Lallan Vs. Bansraji & others in respect of Khata No.315 minjumla in place of old khata no. 108 area 1.364 hectare situate in Mauja- Sisawa @ Chanakapur, Tappa- Kewatali, Pargana- Haweli, Tehsil- Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur, within stipulated period." 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that authorities be directed to ensure the implementation of the order dated 10.03.1962 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Appeal No.160 during first consolidation operation. He submitted that the aforementioned order was passed during first consolidation operation. He submitted that village was denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act on 24.03.1962. He further submitted that village was again notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act on 12.12.1997 and again notified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act on 30.05.1998. He further submitted that authorities be directed to ensure the compliance of the order dated 10.03.1962 passed during first consolidation operation. 6. Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 submitted that the order dated 10.03.1962 stated to be passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation is forged and fictitious, as such, no direction can be issued for implementation of the order dated 10.03.1962. He further submitted that the petitioners are contesting their claim in respect to the notification issued under Section 4 in the year 1987 by way of revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as such, the prayer for implementation of the order dated 10.03.1962 passed during first consolidation operation cannot be allowed in any manner. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions dated 05.03.2025, submitted that the prayer made for implementation of the order dated 10.03.1962 cannot be granted as the order dated 10.03.1962 has not been passed in any proceeding. He submitted that second consolidation operation has already completed in the village in question, as such, the prayer for implementation of the order dated 10.03.1962 passed during the first consolidation operation cannot be entertained and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that first consolidation operation had completed in the village in the year 1962 and second consolidation operation had completed in the year 1998. 10. The prayer made in the instant petition for implementation of the order dated 10.03.1962 passed during the first consolidation operation cannot be entertained. 11. The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Radhika Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad