Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49041 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1013 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day. 2. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arunesh Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The instant petition has been filed for following reliefs:- "A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the recall application filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 in case No. 22/20 plus Recall (Uttama Devi versus State of U.P.) under Section 21(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, pending in the court of Consolidation Officer, Sadar, District Ghazipur, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. B. Issue a writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. C. Award the cost to the petitioner." 4. This Court on 19.03.2025 passed the following order:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sonkar, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that chak objection filed by petitioner was allowed in proper manner. He submitted that time barred restoration application has been filed by contesting respondents and without condoning the delay as well as without allowing the restoration application, interim order has been granted staying the operation of order passed by Consolidation Officer in chak proceeding. He submitted that title objection filed by contesting respondents has been rejected, as such chak objection filed by petitioner was rightly allowed. He submitted that proper direction be issued for expeditious disposal of pending restoration application. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sonakar, learned Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instructions from respondent No.2/ Consolidation Officer Sadar, Azamgarh as to whether delay in filing the restoration application was condoned or not before granting interim order in the restoration application. 4. Put up this matter as fresh on 04.04.2025. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that he has not received the instruction in the matter as directed by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025, as such further time may be granted to obtain instructions. 6. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent nos. 3 and 4 has filed time barred restoration application dated 04.04.2022 in which operation of the order dated 28.06.2021 has been stayed without condoning the delay as well as without allowing the restoration application. 8. Considering the fact that recall application was time barred, as such unless the delay in filing the recall/restoration application is condoned and restoration application is allowed, no interim order can be granted by the Court/authority. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the part of the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by Consolidation Officer by which the effect and operation of the order dated 28.06.2021 has been stayed is set aside. The writ petition is finally disposed of directing the Consolidation Officer to decide a time barred restoration application filed by private respondent nos. 3 and 4, considering the delay condonation matter first. It is further directed that in time barred proceeding, the interim order should not be granted unless the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned and restoration application is allowed. The respondent no.2-Consolidation Officer shall decide the pending time barred restoration application filed by private respondents nos. 3 and 4 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, considering the delay condonation matter in proper manner. 10. The Private respondent nos. 3 and 4 have not been noticed by this Court before passing this order as time barred restoration proceeding is still to be decided by Consolidation Officer where everybody will be heard. However the private respondents can file application for recalling of this order before this Court, if they have any grievance against this order. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad