Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61479 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1482 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satyanath And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 31 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Behari Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohit Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Awadh Behari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act"), the Consolidation Officer has decided the matter vide order dated 7.9.1977, granting co-tenancy right to predecessor of private respondents. Against the order dated 7.9.1977, passed by the Consolidation Officer, six appeals were filed under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur. Raja Ram, father of respondent no.5 was the appellant of 4 appeals and other two appeals were filed by Damodar, father of petitioner no.1 and Lalji respectively. The aforementioned appeals were clubbed and heard together. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 18.3.2023 allowed the appeals filed by the petitioners' father Damodar and dismissed the appeal filed by the father of respondent no.5. Against the order dated 18.3.2023, father of respondent no.5 filed a restoration application on 25.3.2023 and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 25.3.2023 allowed the restoration application by writing a single word on the application itself as "allowed" (सववकक त). The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.3.2023 by way of revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act which has been dismissed under the impugned order, hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.3.2025 passed by respondent no.2 (Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Janpur) (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents not to proceed with the proceeding pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Jaunpur after the order dated 25.3.2023 and the proceeding pending in pursuance thereof may be quashed." 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the title appeals filed by both the parties were heard and decided on merit, as such, restoration application cannot be entertained and allowed by the consolidation authorities. He further submitted that restoration application has been filed by the father of respondent no.5 on 25.3.2023 and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the same date, allowed the application, without following due procedure of law. It is also submitted that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to review his own judgment passed on merit, as such, the impugned orders should be set aside and the order dated 18.3.2023 should be affirmed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 submitted that proper opportunity was not afforded in appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act, accordingly, restoration application was filed on behalf of the father of respondent no.5. He also submitted that restoration application has been allowed under the impugned order and the petitioners have full opportunity to contest the proceeding of appeal in accordance with law. He submitted that revision filed by the petitioners was rightly dismissed and no interference is required in the matter. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that title objection was decided by the Consolidation Officer and title appeal filed by both the parties were clubbed and decided vide order dated 18.3.2023 on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 7. Since the title appeal filed by both the parties have been decided on merit, as such, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1997(88) R.D. 562, Smt. Shivraji and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Others, the judgment passed on merit cannot be reviewed by the consolidation courts. 8. In the instant matter, title appeals filed by both the parties were clubbed and decided together on merit, as such, there was no occasion to entertain the restoration application on behalf of the party who has himself filed the appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act which was heard and decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 9. Considering the ratio of law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Shivraji (supra) as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.3.2025, passed by respondent no.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and 25.3.2023 passed by respondent no.3/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed. Private respondents are at liberty to challenge the appellate order by means of revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned in accordance with law. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad