Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81379 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1587 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bhushan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramakant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ramakant Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act have been initiated at the instance of petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 which are pending before respondent no. 3-Consolidation Officer Chitbadagaon, District Ballia. In the aforementioned proceeding issues were framed in the year 2003. Further issue was framed in the aforementioned proceeding in the year 2024. The evidence is going on in the aforementioned proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. On behalf of the petitioner an application for expert opinion has been filed, which has been rejected by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 06.03.2023 recording finding that the aforesaid application has been filed in order to linger on the proceeding before Consolidation Officer. A revision filed on behalf of petitioner against the order dated 06.03.2023 has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.09.2024. Hence, this writ petition for following reliefs:- "I. Issue writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi Camp Ballia/respondent no. 2 in Case No. 1519 of 2023 its computerize case no. 20235415900001519 (Bhushan Yadav Vs. Hridaya Narayan and others) under Section 48(1) U.P.C.H. Act 1953 as well as order dated 06.03.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer Chitbadagaon, District Ballia/respondent no. 3 in Case No. 11 under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act (Hridaya Narayan Vs. Rambadai) Mauja Paligrakala, Pargana Kopachit Sharki, Tehsil and District Ballia. II. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3/Consolidation Officer Chitbadagaon, District Ballia to reconsider the application dated 01.11.2018 of the petitioner for tallied the signature of witness Shriram Yadav made on the will deed dated 27.03.2002 and his statement dated 14.02.2006 from signature expert. III. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper into the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of the writ petition." 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned orders have been passed by Consolidation authorities in illegal and arbitrary manner. He further submitted that application dated 01.11.2018 and 16.02.2023 filed by petitioner for expert opinion have been rejected in arbitrary manner by Consolidation Officer and order has been maintained in revision on misconceived ground. He next submitted that impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities should be set aside and application for expert opinion filed by the petitioner dated 01.11.2018 as well as application dated 16.02.2023 should be allowed accordingly. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that no interference is required against the orders impugned passed by Consolidation authorities as proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act is pending since 2002. He further submitted that issues have already been framed in the proceeding in the year 2003 and evidence of the parties is going on. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the facts that proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act are pending before Consolidation Officer since 2002 and issues were framed in the year 2003. There is also no dispute about the facts that evidence of the parties is going on before the Consolidation Officer. 8. Perusal of the record demonstrates that proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.CH. Act are pending since 2002 and issues were framed in the year 2003, as such a filing of application for expert opinion after such a long period cannot be entertained by the authorities as petitioner was fully aware about the case of will deed as set up by the respondents in respect to plot in question. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the orders impugned passed by Consolidation authorities. 10. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no. 3-Consolidation Officer Chitbadagaon, District Ballia to decide the aforementioned proceeding, under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad