Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42558 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1074 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahadev Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Singh Yadav,Dinesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent- Land Management Committee and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Stamp Reporter has reported laches of 754 days in filing the instant petition. 3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings and order dated 7.11.2022 passed by respondent no.4/ Consolidation Officer, Tehsildar Chibramau, Kannauj in case No. 1917 of 2022 (Computer case No. 202254033943021917) (Vrindawan Vs. State) u/s 21 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioner, during the pendency of present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order dated 7.11.2022 has been passed in case No. 1917 of 2022 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act in illegal and arbitrary manner. He submitted that petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.11.2022 by way of time barred appeal No. 292 which is pending before Settlement Officer Consolidation. He submitted that entire proceeding initiated under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act by the private respondents is abuse of process of law in view of the proceeding concluded under Section 21 of the U.P.C.H. Act which has attained finality in the matter. He submitted that order dated 7.11.2022 is illegal and without jurisdiction, as such, the impugned order dated 7.11.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of the pending case under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act should be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that petitioner has already challenged the order dated 7.11.2022 by way of time barred appeal which is pending before Settlement Officer Consolidation, as such, the instant petition with laches of 754 days as reported by Stamp Reporter cannot be entertained. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, an order dated 7.11.2022 was passed by Consolidation Officer declaring the plot in question as C.H. 18 and petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.11.22 by way of time barred appeal which is pending before respondent no.3, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Kannauj. 8. In view of the pendency of time barred appeal at the instance of the petitioner against the order on 7.11.2022, the instant petition cannot be entertained. The writ petition is dismissed. However respondent no.3 is directed to decide the time barred appeal No. TB292 filed by petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad