Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71269 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1705 of 2025 Petitioner :- Hari Shanker Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharm Vir Jaiswal,Harsh Vikram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Utkarsh Yogi, holding brief of Mr. Dharm Vir Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) initiated at the instance of father of respondent Nos.4 to 7 the objector-Malkhan Singh has expired accordingly application for substitution filed by the legal heirs of the deceased party Malkhan Singh has been allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 08.06.2022. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 08.06.2022 revision under Section 48 of U.PC.H. Act filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2025, hence this writ petiton for the following relief: "I. issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the records of the case quash the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the consolidation officer Sambhal in case number 6/21-22 Malkhan Vs. State (annexure number 5) and order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sambhal in case number 1413/2022 (revision number 612/20254137400001413) Hari Shanker Versus Vinod and others (annexure number-7)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that substitution application filed in respect to the deceased-Malkhan Singh was time barred as such the same cannot be allowed unless there is application for condonation of delay. He submitted that Consolidation Officer has allowed the substitution application in illegal and arbitrary manner, as such impugned order should be set aside and the substitution application filed in respect to the deceased-Malkhan Singh should be rejected accordingly. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that in the title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act substitution application in respect to the deceased-objector-Malkhan Singh has been allowed vide order dated 08.06.2022 and date has been fixed for disposal of title objection on merit. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner against the order allowing the substitution application has been dismissed. 6. It is also material to mention that provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in the proceeding under U.P.C.H. Act as held by full Bench of this Court in the case reported in AIR 1970 Allahabad 241. This Court in the case reported in 1990 RD 151 Dilbagh Singh vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and others has held that substance and spirit of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code can be applied in the ends of justice. 7. Considering the fact that the Consolidation Officer has allowed the application to substitute the legal heir of objector-Malkhan Singh in the title objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, there is no scope for interference against the order dated 08.06.2022 allowing the substitution application in the proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U .P.C.H. Act. 8. The writ petiton is misconceived and dismissed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the pending objection under Section 9-A(2)of U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad