Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58551 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1472 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jai Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.,Rajnath Ydav Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Shashi Prakash Misra, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos.4,5,6,8,9 & 10 is taken on record. 2. Respondent no.7 has already filed his caveat in the matter. 3. Heard Mr. Chandra Bhan Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Prakash, learned counsel for respondent nos.4,5,6,8,9 & 10, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.11/ gaon sabha. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"), the final order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 15.2.1973 directing that the plot in question be recorded as abadi (Class 6 category plot) in the revenue records. Against the order dated 15.12.1973, a time barred restoration application has been filed in the year 2021, which has been rejected vide order dated 24.2.2025 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.2.2025, 15.12.1973 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No.FST/0100 of 2020, Jay Nath Vs. Gram Panchayat and others under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and in Revision No.89/247/38/73, Jhagru Vs. Mata Deen, under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and also impugned order dated 14.3.1972 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No.8312, under Section 9-ka (2). (Annexure No.1,2 & 3) ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concerned not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question pursuant to the impugned judgment and orders dated 24.2.2025, 15.12.1973 passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No.FST/0100 of 2020, Jay Nath Vs. Gram Panchayat and others, under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and in Revision No.89/247/38/73, Jhagru Vs. Mata Deen under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act and also impugned order dated 14.3.1972 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No.8312, under Section 9-ka (2) during the pendency of the present writ petition so that justice may be done." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 15.12.1973 was passed in ex-parte and arbitrary manner, as such, the order dated 15.12.1973 should be set aside. He further submitted that the reason for delay in filing the restoration application has been assigned in the application filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 15.12.1973, as such, the restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioner should be allowed after granting benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act and revision filed by private respondent should be heard afresh in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Shashi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the revision filed by the predecessor of the private respondent was allowed after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, as such, the restoration application filed after 47 years in respect to the plot in question which was ordered to be recorded as abadi (Class 6 category plot) cannot be entertained. He further submitted that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 15.12.1973, as such, the time barred restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioner has been rightly rejected under the impugned order dated 24.2.2025. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 15.12.1973 directed that plot no.1879 / 2 area 0.62 hectare should be recorded as abadi (Class 6 category plot). There is also no dispute about the fact that the restoration application has been filed by the petitioner after 47 years along with the prayer for condonation of delay which has been rejected under the impugned order dated 24.2.2025. 9. Considering the fact that the order dated 15.2.1973 was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, as such, the highly time barred restoration application cannot be entertained against the order dated 15.12.1973 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. 10. Since under the order dated 15.12.1973, plot no.1879/2 was ordered to be recorded as abadi (Class 6 category plot), as such, the petitioner should initiate proper proceeding before the Civil Court if there is any interference with the possession of the petitioner as alleged rather application for restoration against the order passed by Consolidation Court about 50 years before. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter. 12. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate proper proceeding in accordance with law as mentioned in the body of the judgement. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad