Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60909 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1501 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dharampal Respondent :- Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh And Another Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ayyub Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muneshwar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") initiated by the private respondent has been decided by the Consolidation Officer. Against the final order passed by the Consolidation Officer on merit, successive restoration applications have been filed by the private respondent no.2. Petitioner has applied for transfer under Rule 65 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Rules"), which has been rejected under the impugned order dated 7.2.2025. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.2.2025 passed by learned Consolidation Commissioner Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow/ respondent no.1 in Transfer Application No.290 / 2024, under Section 65 (2) of Uttar Prades of Holdings Rules (Dharampal vs. Jai Prakash Singh and Others) vide (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents the further proceedings of restoration application no.170, Computerized Case No.B245411880040170 (Jai Prakash vs. State and others), under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act which is pending before the learned Consolidation Officer, Baraut, Baghpat which has been pending before the learned Consolidation Officer, Baraut, Baghpat may be kept in abeyance till final disposal of the instant writ petition before the Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the allegation made in the transfer application, the proceeding of restoration initiated at the instance of private respondent no.2 against the order under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act is to be transferred from the Court of Consolidation Officer Baraut, Bhaghpat to any other district. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required in the matter in view of the finding recorded under the impugned order dated 7.2.2025. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by private respondent has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that the restoration application filed by private respondent is pending. There is also no dispute about the fact that the transfer application filed by the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned order dated 7.2.2025. 7. Considering the fact that objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by private respondent has been allowed and restoration application filed by private respondent is pending, no case to transfer the proceeding from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Baraut, Bhaghpat is made out. So far as the merit of the restoration application is concerned, the same can be decided in accordance with law by the Consolidation Officer himself rather to transfer the proceeding outside the district. 8. No interference is required against the impugned order. 9. The writ petition is dismissed and Consolidation Officer, Baraut Baghpat is directed to decide the pending restoration application in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad