HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 4365 of 2025 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ambuj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.6, Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the gram sabha and Mr. Hari Om Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that village was notified under Section 4 of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) by way of notification issued on 16.05.1989. Village was notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act by way of notification issued on 28.02.2013. The Writ Petition No. 40184 of 2013 filed challenging the notification dated 28.02.2013 issued under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act, was entertained but the same was finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.3.2026. Petitioner has applied for recording of his name under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of registered sale deed alleged to be executed in his favour on 13.7.2020. Consolidation Officer directed to record the name of the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.2020. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.12.2020, appeal under Section 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no. 6 and Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 17.10.2024 allowed the appeal, set Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ambuj Srivastava, C.S.C., Kaushal Kishore Mani, Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Sanjeev Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) aside the order dated 22.12.2020 and sent the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act afresh. Against the order dated 17.10.2024, restoration application was filed on behalf of petitioner on 24.10.2024 and Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 13.02.2025 set aside the order dated 17.10.2024 and restored the proceeding of appeal on its original number. Against the order dated 13.2.2025, revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act has been filed by respondent no.6 and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 06.05.2025 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 13.02.2025 and maintained the earlier appellate order dated 17.10.2024 as well as directed the parties to appear before Consolidation Officer for fresh adjudication of dispute under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. Hence this petition filed for the following relief.:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.5.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 (D.D.C. Saharanpur) in revision no.145/2025 (Shokendra Kumar Vs. Sanjeev Kumar)(Annexure -1 to this writ petition. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation after allowing the petitioner's restoration application has restored the proceeding of appeal on its original number as such revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no.6 was not maintainable. He further submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally set aside the appellate order and directed the parties to appear before Consolidation Officer for fresh WRIB No. 4365 of 2025 2 adjudication of dispute which has already been adjudicated by the Consolidation Officer in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 submitted that writ petition filed against notification issued under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act has been dismissed by this Court, as such the claim set up by petitioner for recording of his name under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be maintained. He further submitted no interference is required in the matter and direction be issued to Consolidation Officer to pass appropriate order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner initiated under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that village in question has been notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H.Act on 28.2.2013. There is no dispute about the fact that earlier writ petition challenging the notification issued under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act has been dismissed by this court on 16.3.2026. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act will be relevant, which is as under:- Section 6 of U.P.C.H.Act Cancellation of 6(1) 1[notification ]under Section 4- (1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the 1 [notification] made under Section 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein. (2) Where a 1[notification[ has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final order relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation. WRIB No. 4365 of 2025 3 8. It is material to mention that village in question was notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H.Act on 28.2.2013 and writ petition challenging the notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H.Act has been dismissed by this Court on 16.3.2026 as such the consolidation officer cannot entertain the claim initiated under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of sale deed executed on 13.7.2020. The order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation directing the parties to appear before Consolidation Officer for consideration of claim initiated under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act cannot be sustained in the eye of law as village in question has already been notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act. 9. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act should be decided in pursuance of appellate order dated 13.2.2025 is also misconceived, as village in question has been notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act on 28.2.2013 and writ petition challenging the notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act has been dismissed by this Court on 16.3.2026. 10. The law is well settled that final orders passed before issuance of notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act shall be given effect in record as provided under Section 6 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. In the instant matter, no order was passed by Consolidation Court before issuance of notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, impugned revisional order dated 6.5.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside and same is hereby set aside with modification that matter will not proceed before consolidation officer as village has already been notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act.The petitioner will initiate proper proceeding as provided under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on the WRIB No. 4365 of 2025 4 basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 13.7.2020 in favour of petitioner. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally. (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) May 6, 2026 PS* WRIB No. 4365 of 2025 5 Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad