HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 2614 of 2025 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the petition during course of the day. 2. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5, Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for Land Management Committee and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that against the basic year entry of plot in question, time-barred title objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 along with prayer for condonation of delay. Consolidation Officer condoned the delay in filing the objection and passed the order, which was challenged in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 27.08.2024, allowed the revision filed by petitioner, setting aside the order dated 05.07.2021 and remitted the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the delay condonation matter first, after inviting objection and affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. After remand order passed by Deputy Director of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Muktesh Kumar Singh, Nikhil Kumar Mishra, Pradeep Singh Dhananjay Rai .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Consolidation, vide order dated 27.08.2024, an application dated 17.04.2025 has been filed on behalf of petitioner for obtaining report regarding the basic year entry of the plot in question. Consolidation Officer on 01.07.2025 passed the order that delay condonation matter shall be considered first and fixed the date for disposal of delay condonation matter. Hence this petition for the following relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 01.07.2025 and 9.10.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer, Rambagh, District Mirzapur in Case No. 0808 (109) of 2024 and Computer No. 202454165331010808 (Subhash Chandra and another Vs. Dhananjay Rai and others) Under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. 1953. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Rambagh, District- Mirzapur to decide the application dated 17.4.2025 filed by petitioner in Case No. 0808(109) of 2024 (Subhash Chandra and another Vs. Dhananjay Rai and others Under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. 1953 within the specific period which may kindly be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Rambagh, District- Mirzapur firstly call the report from the authority concerned and also summoned the record of Khata No.225 situated in Village-Padara Hanuman, Tappa-84, Pargana Kantit, Tahsil-Sadar, District-Mirzapur and thereafter decide the case bearing Case No. 0808(109) of 2024 and Computer No. 202454165331010808 (Subhash Chandra and another WRIB No. 2614 of 2025 2 Vs. Dhananjay Rai and others) on limitation." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that title objection filed by respondent nos.4 and 5 is highly time-barred as such the same cannot be entertained. He submitted that Consolidation Officer has condoned the inordinate delay in filing the title objection, accordingly revision was filed and matter was remitted back before Consolidation Officer, but Consolidation Officer is not proceeding in accordance with law. He submitted that an application was filed to obtain complete report regarding status of basic year entry of the plot in question but without obtaining report on the application dated 17.04.2025, Consolidation Officer is proceeding with the matter as such impugned order should be set aside and Consolidation Officer be directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 17.04.2025 in proper manner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5 submitted that in pursuance of the revisional order, the Consolidation Officer is going to consider the delay condonation matter first, which is proper exercise of jurisdiction and no interference is required against the order of Consolidation Officer. He submitted that petitioner is only interested to linger on the court proceeding as such he is making applications before Consolidation Officer. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing the instant petition before this Court, another order has been passed by Consolidation Officer on 09.10.2025 closing the opportunity of the petitioner to file objection against the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. He submitted that order dated 09.10.2025 should be set aside permitting the petitioner to file objection against application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. WRIB No. 2614 of 2025 3 7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no interim order has been passed against the order dated 01.07.2025 as such Consolidation Officer has closed the opportunity of petitioner to file objection against application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. He submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer as such instant writ petition should be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that time barred title objection has been filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5, against the basic year entry which is pending before Consolidation Officer. 10. It is material to mention that the delay in filing the time barred objection was condoned by the Consolidation Officer without notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner accordingly revision filed by petitioner was allowed and matter was remitted back before consolidation officer to consider the delay condonation matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1.7.2025 has passed the order that delay condonation matter shall be considered first as such, there is no illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the Consolidation Officer and fixing date for disposal of delay condonation matter. So for as order dated 9.10.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer closing the opportunity of the petitioner to file objection against the delay condonation matter is concerned, the interest of justice requires that last opportunity be afforded to petitioner to file objection against the delay condonation matter. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 9.10.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer by which petitioner's opportunity to file objection against the application under Section 5 of WRIB No. 2614 of 2025 4 Limitation Act has been closed is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside and petitioner is granted last opportunity to file objection against the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed by respondent no.4 & 5 so that delay condonation matter can be decided in accordance with law. So far as order dated 1.07.2025 is concerned, the same cannot be interfered with. 12. The writ petition is finally disposed of directing the petitioner to file objection before Consolidation Officer against the application under Section 5 of Limitation of Act within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and Consolidation Officer shall decide the delay condonation matter in pursuance of the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) May 6, 2026 PS* WRIB No. 2614 of 2025 5 Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad