Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70428 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1349 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kapil Dev Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bashisth Narain Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr Bashishth Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Santosh Singh learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr Mridul Kumar, learned standing counsel for the state respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being heard finally without inviting counter affidavit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under section 9- A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) an order was passed by Consolidation Officer on 23.02.1997 for recording name of petitioner over the plot in question. Against the order dated 23.02.1997 appeal under section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent No.3 along with prayer for condonation of delay which was allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order 11.10.2022 setting aside the order dated 23.02.1997 and directed that plot in question shall be recorded in the name of Jagdishwar Prasad son of Jwala Prasad Singh. Against the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by a Settlement Officer of Consolidation revision was filed by the petitioner before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No. 202254171400001600. In the aforementioned revision an application for impleadment was filed on 19.11.2024 for impleadment of Jagdishwar Prasad Singh son of Jwala Prasad, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.11.2024. Petitioner has again applied for impleadment on 04.12.2024 in the pending revision for impleadment of Janardan Prasad son of Jwala Prasad and Smt. Aditi Singh daughter of Dhananjay Prasad which has been rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.01.2025. Hence this petition for the following relief: "(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti (Annexure No.4) to this writ petition)." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impleadment application filed during pendency of the title revision has been rejected in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that Janardan Prasad and Smt. Aditi Singh are co-sharer of the plot in question as such impleadment of Janardan Prasad and Smt. Aditi Singh D/o Dhananjay Prasad is necessary for effective decision of the dispute in respect to the plot in question. He submitted that due to mistake, name of Janardan Prasad son of Jwala Prasad and Smt. Aditi Singh d/o Dhananjay Prasad could not be mentioned in the earlier impleadment application filed on behalf of revisionist in the pending the revision. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and impleadment application should be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that one impleadment application filed by petitioner was allowed as such the filing of subsequent impleadment application at the instance of the petitioner is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that petitioner is trying to linger on the proceeding of revision by filing transfer application which was rejected by the authority and writ petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2025. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that title proceeding under section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.02.1997. There is also no dispute that title appeal filed by respondent No.3 was allowed and plot in question was ordered to be recorded in the name of Jagdishwar Prasad son of Jwala Prasad Singh (brother of respondent No.3). There is also no dispute about the fact that in revision filed by petitioner, impleadment application filed by the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned order. 8. It is material to mention that petitioner has applied for impleadment of Janardan Prasad son of Jwala Prasad and Smt. Aditi Singh daughter of Dhananjay Prasad, who are co-sharer of the plot in question as alleged as such the impleadment of Janardan Prasad and Smt. Aditi Singh will be necessary for the effective decision of the dispute in respect to the plot in question. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting impleadment application dated 04.12.2024 filed by petitioner in pending revision is liable to be set aside and the same is here by set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed and impleadment application dated 04.12.2024 filed by petitioner in pending revision is also allowed. Petitioner is permitted to implead the Janardan Prasad and Smt. Aditi Singh as opposite party in the pending revision and respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the aforementioned pending revision expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad