HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 2266 of 2025 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri Anjani Kumar Chaurasi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent no.2 to record the statement of primary witnesses, i.e., marginal witness as well as sale deed writer firstly, thereafter, record the statement of secondary witness. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the application of the petitioner no.2 dated 6.5.2025 which is pending before the Respondent no.2 in Suit No.178 of 2021 (computerized case no.202154143658040178) (Dukhna vs. Shambu Narayan), under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act, 1953, expeditiously, within a stipulated period." 3. This Court directed the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. 4. In compliance of the order of this Court, instructions dated 15.11.2025 sent by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur is Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhananjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kailash Nath Singh Champa Devi Since Deceased And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) already on record of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.2/Consolidation Officer is not proceeding in accordance with law under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act"), as such, necessary direction be issued to respondent no.2 to record the statement of primary witnesses first and thereafter secondary witnesses. He submitted that the application dated 6.5.2025 to this effect, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer but no order has been passed over the same, as such, respondent no.2 be directed to consider the petitioners' application dated 6.5.2025 and proceed in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents and the learned standing counsel for the State submitted that this Court in Writ B No.2239 of 2024, filed by respondent no.4-Chhote Lal, directed the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.7.2024 to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act within 3 months. They submitted that due to transfer application filed by the petitioners, the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer is held up. They also submitted that the Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties, reserved the order on 30.9.2025 but due to pendency of the transfer application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the order could not be delivered by the Consolidation Officer. They further submitted that the petitioners have filed a transfer application on 6.5.2025 to transfer the proceeding of Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act to any other court which is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as such, final order could not be passed by the Consolidation Officer. They submitted that the petitioners are misusing the process of law, as such, the writ petition should be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section WRIB No. 2266 of 2025 2 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act was ordered to be decided within a period of 3 months under the order of this Court dated 3.7.2024 passed in Writ B No.2239/2024. There is also no dispute about the fact that no final order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act. 9. Considering the fact that this Court has already directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act within a period of 3 months, as such, prayer made in the instant writ petition to direct the Consolidation Officer to record the statement of primary witnesses first and secondary witnesses thereafter, cannot be accepted by this Court. 10. It is also material to mention that the petitioners have themselves filed a transfer application before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in order to frustrate the direction dated 3.7.2024 issued by this Court to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. May 4, 2026 C.Prakash WRIB No. 2266 of 2025 3 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad