Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71655 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1595 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramkant Maurya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balendra Deo Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Balendra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act was initiated on behalf of the petitioners which was initially allowed by Consolidation officer vide order dated 12.03.2015, but on the restoration application dated 27.04.2016 filed by the State/Gaon Sabha, the order dated 12.03.2015 has been recalled and proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act has been restored to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on merit, hence this writ petition for the following relief: "(i). to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of the Consolidation Officer dated 19.02.2025 affirm the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by respondent No.2. (ii). to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not dispossess the petitioners." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were granted lease under U.P. Bhudan Yagya Act, 1952 on 18.11.1990 accordingly-Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to recall the order dated 12.03.2015 as the consolidation officer has already exercised the jurisdiction under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with law. He submitted that earlier the application for recall was filed by the State/ Gaon sabha which was challenged before this Court, and this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner No.2 vide order dated 24.08.2018 with liberty that petitioners can challenge the order passed by Consolidation Officer on the restoration application in accordance with law. He submitted that restoration application filed by State/Gaon Sabha has been allowed under the impugned order and proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act has been restored for fresh disposal of dispute which is abuse of process of law. He submitted that alternative remedy against the impugned order will not be bar for petitioners to challenge the order impugned before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that under the impugned order, the restoration application has been allowed and proceeding under Section 12 of of U.P.C.H. Act has been restored to its original number as such, the writ petition is not maintainable rather petitioners should appear before the Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that no interference is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that under the impugned order, the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act has been restored to its original number after allowing the restoration/recall application filed by the State/Gaon sahba. There is also no dispute about the fact that earlier Writ B No.4306 of 2018 filed by the petitioners was dismissed with liberty to petitioner No. 2 to avail proper remedy after disposal of the restoration application by Consolidation Officer. 7. Perusal of impugned order dated 12.03.2025 fully demonstrate that under the impugned order, the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H.Act has been restored for fresh adjudication of the dispute in accordance with law on the ground that State has not been given opportunity to contest the proceeding before passing of impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act as such, there is no scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order restoring the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on its original number for fresh adjudication of dispute in accordance with law. 8.The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad