HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 147 of 2022 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. The present Special Appeal is directed against order dated 20.09.2021 passed in Writ-B No. 418 of 2021 whereby learned Single Judge, on noticing grievances of the petitioner/appellant regarding the consolidation proceedings that certain plots being recorded as place of National and Historical Importance, the same have been recorded in the name of certain tenure-holders, came to the conclusion that adjudication of the said aspect can take place under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ('Act, 1953') and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. 2. Counsel for the appellant made submissions that dismissal of the writ petition on account of provisions of Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was not justified as the said proceedings can only be initiated by a tenure- holder whereas the case of the appellant pertains to bungling, which has taken place during the consolidation proceedings and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 3. We have perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that appellant made a representation, Annexure-5, to the District Collector raising grievances pertaining to the manner in which the consolidation proceedings were being undertaken, making allegations about interpolations and that the land, which was of Archeological and Historical importance, was not being appropriately delineated and sought stay of the consolidation proceedings. Copy of the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramanand Pandey, A.C.S.C. Ahteshamul Haque Farooqui .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and 4 others .....Respondent(s) representation was marked to the Consolidation Commissioner and other authorities under the Act, 1953. 5. In the writ petition, mandamus was sought against the District Collector to pass appropriate orders on the representation, Annexure-5. Apparently, the attempt made by the appellant, seeking stay of the consolidation proceedings by approaching the District Collector, by itself, was faulty as under the Act, 1953, the District Collector independent of the other authorities, has no supervisory powers. Whereafter also, mandamus has been sought from this Court qua the District Collector for decision of the representation made, the said relief also is wholly inappropriate in the circumstances of the case. The representation was made way back on 24.09.2020, during the said period of five years, the consolidation proceedings must have proceeded and may have attained finality/would be in advance stage. 6. In those circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. However, if the appellant still have any grievance and is legally entitled to raise such grievance, he can approach the appropriate authority under the Act, 1953. 7. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. September 12, 2025 nd/Sazia SPLA No. 147 of 2022 2 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad