Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69951 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1679 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Usha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karuna Srivastava,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the consolidation proceeding, an order passed on 29.4.2011 by which Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh allowed the revision filed by predecessor of respondent setting aside the orders dated 23.3.1985, 26.8.1985 as well as 22.2.2010 and matter was remitted back before Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding afresh. Under the legal advice, petitioner has filed a restoration application dated 25.11.2022 along with the prayer for condonation of delay against the order dated 29.4.2011, which was remained pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The consolidation authorities proceeded in pursuance of the order dated 29.4.2011 and passed the order accordingly on 22.8.2012 at present appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") filed by private respondent no.4/ Sri Ram and others has been dismissed in default on 2.8.2023. Respondent no.4 filed a restoration application against the order dated 2.8.2023, which is still pending for consideration before respondent no.3/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh vide order dated 13.1.2025 rejected the petitioner's time barred restoration application dated 25.11.2022 and maintained the order dated 29.4.2011, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 in Restoration Application / Case No.RST/2860/2022 (Computerized Case No.20225415600002860) "Jagai vs. Jitendra", under Section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 (Annexure No.15 to the writ petition). ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to decide the restoration application dated 21.8.2023 filed by respondent no.4 Sri Ram against the order dated 2.8.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 in Appeal/ Case No.1077 of 2023 (Computer Case No.2023541500001077) Sri Ram and others Vs. Usha Devi and Others, under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 29.4.2011, Consolidation Officer has proceeded with the matter and passed another order dated 22.8.2012, as such, the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation affirming the order dated 29.4.2011 is wholly illegal. He further submitted that at present the restoration application filed by private respondent against the order dismissing the appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is pending, as such, there was no occasion to maintain the order dated 29.4.2011 while passing the impugned order dated 13.1.2025. He further submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and respondent no.3 be directed to decide the pending restoration application dated 21.8.2023 filed by respondent no.4/ Sri Ram against the order dated 2.8.2023, under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that restoration application filed by the petitioner was highly time barred, as such, Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order dated has rightly rejected the petitioner's restoration application as time barred. 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 in pursuance of the order dated 29.4.2011, consolidation authorities have proceeded with the matter and passed the order and at present restoration application filed by private respondent dismissing the title appeal for non-prosecution is pending. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner's restoration application dated 25.11.2022 was highly time barred against the order dated 29.4.2011, which has been dismissed under the impugned order dated 13.1.2025 as time barred. 7. Considering the fact that in pursuance of the remand order dated 29.4.2011, the matter has proceeded before the consolidation authorities and at present the restoration application filed by the private respondent against the order dismissing the appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before respondent no.3/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh, as such, restoration application dated 25.11.2022 cannot be allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been rightly rejected under the impugned order dated 13.1.2025. 8. So far as the part of the impugned order dated 13.1.2025 by which the order dated 29.4.2011 has been maintained that is not proper for Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh while passing the impugned order dated 13.1.2025. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, the part of the impugned order dated 13.1.2025 by which the order dated 29.4.2011 has been affirmed is hereby set aside. So far as the part of the order by which the petitioner's restoration application dated 25.11.2022 has been rejected, requires no interference by this Court. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of with direction to respondent no.3/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh to decide the restoration application dated 21.8.2023 filed by respondent no.4/ Sri Ram in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no.3. 11. No notice has been issued to the private respondent before passing the order in the instant petition as the restoration matter is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh where parties will be heard. If private respondents will have any grievance, they can file recall application before this Court against this order. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad