Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60358 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 57840 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sudha And Others Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivstava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act, a restoration application filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has been allowed vide order dated 09.11.2009 and proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act has been restored to its original number. Against the order restoring the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, the appeal as well as revision filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari A(2) U.P.C.H. Act, so for as it relates to respondent no.4, which has already been ordered to be dropped by Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 20.07.2007, but after lapse of two years, the same has illegally been restored/reviewed by the learned C.O. vide his order dated 09.11.2009 and Appeal no. 705, under Section 11(1) U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 26.04.2010, and thereafter revision no. 1170, u/s 48(1) U.P.C.H. Act preferred by the petitioners against the said order, has also been dismissed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur vide order dated 31.03.2011, and itself to quash the said orders, illegally reviewing of the proceedings of the said case. ii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. iii. Award the costs of the present writ petition to the petitioners." 3. No effective order has been passed by this Court in the instant petition since 2012 as petitioners' counsel has not appeared on the first date of hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was decided in accordance with law vide order dated 20.07.2007, as such the restoration application along with prayer for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 cannot be entertained. He next submitted that recall/restoration application filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has been allowed in an illegal and arbitrary manner. He submitted that appeal and revision filed by the petitioners have been dismissed without considering the case as set up by the petitioner in appeal and revision. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and the earlier order passed by Consolidation Officer should be maintained. 5. On the other hand, Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 submitted that restoration application filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 has been allowed in proper manner and the proceeding under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act has been restored by the Consolidation Officer in the year 2012. He further submitted that no interim order was passed in the instant petition nor the petition was entertained even then Consolidation Officer has not decided the matter on the ground that writ petition is pending before this Court. He next submitted that no interference is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He submitted that appropriate direction be issued to the Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur to decide the pending title dispute under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with law. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the facts that dispute under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act is pending before respondent no. 3-Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur in pursuance of the order dated 09.11.2009 passed on the restoration application of respondent no. 4. 8. Considering the order passed by the Consolidation authorities in restoration application, appeal and revision restoring the title objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act for decision on merit, there is no scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition is dismissed and the respondent no.3-Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur is directed to decide the Case No. 126 under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act (Sudha and others Versus Angoori) in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad