HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 246 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Writ B No.762 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been summarily dismissed. 2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2142 of 2024 seeking a direction for quashing of the notification dated 09.09.2023 in respect of Village Pali, Tehsil Goverdhan, District Mathura issued under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ('the Act'). 3. Submissions were made that after issuance of notification, the Committee of Gram Panchayat Pali passed a resolution seeking cancellation of the consolidation proceedings and have approached Consolidation Officer, Mathura seeking such cancellation along with representation, however, the said representation was not decided despite provisions of Section 6 of the Act and Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 ('Rules,1954'). 4. This Court, by its order dated 08.11.2024 directed the respondents/Competent Authority to decide the pending representation seeking cancellation of proceedings under Section 6 of the Act within a period of two months from the date a copy of the order was filed by the petitioner before the Competent Authority. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra, Ritesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akansha Sharma, S.C. Jay Pal Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and 3 others .....Respondent(s) 5. Pursuant to the said order, the Competent Authority passed order dated 08.01.2025, rejecting the representation. Aggrieved of the said rejection, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under appeal. 6. Learned Single Judge, after noticing the contentions raised, referred to decisions of this Court in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Limited v. State of U.P. : 1975 SCC Online All 521, Raja Ram Ojha v. Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow : 2014 SCC Online All 15410 and Vishvadev v. Director of Consolidation and others : 2016:AHC:182608-DB and came to the conclusion that challenge to a notification under Section 4 of the Act can only be made by raising grounds impugning the Statute or an Act of Parliament or the State Legislature and the same cannot be questioned on the grounds as are available to assail administrative orders or executive decisions of the Government and, consequently, dismissed the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that challenge was laid to the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by Consolidation Commissioner pursuant to the directions issued by this Court to decide the same in terms of provisions of Section 6 of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules, 1954, which was questioned by the petitioner-appellant. The dismissal of the petition based on the grounds that the grounds raised were not within the parameters of questioning the validity of a Statute is not justified. 8. Submissions have been made that once an order has been passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, it is always open for the petitioner to question the validity of the said order based on all the grounds available and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Single Judge. 9. Learned Standing Counsel attempted to justify the order dated 08.01.2025. 10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules, 1954, SPLA No. 246 of 2025 2 provides for cancellation of notification made under Section 4 of the Act in respect of whole or any part of the area on one or more grounds indicated therein. Based on the said grounds, the petitioner had moved an application before the Competent Authority and the Authority had passed order dated 08.01.2025 rejecting the representation. The determination made by learned Single Judge, restricting the challenge to an order of the present nature, wherein the objection raised under Rule 17 of the Rules, 1954 has been rejected, in the nature of a challenge made to a Statute or Act of Parliament or State Legislature, apparently, cannot be countenanced. 12. The order, which has been passed rejecting the representation under Rule 17 of the Rules, 1954, is of administrative nature only and the validity can be examined on the grounds sought to be raised in the present petition. 13. It is something different to indicate that the grounds, as raised, are not sustainable but to indicate that the nature of grounds raised cannot even be made the basis of questioning the validity of the order dated 08.01.2025, cannot be sustained. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. 15. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for hearing and deciding the matter in accordance with law. 16. We make it clear that we have not examined the grounds raised and the validity of order dated 08.01.2025, in any manner and have only decided the parameters under which the petition could have been maintained. October 9, 2025 nd SPLA No. 246 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad