Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76533 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1818 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai,Satish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Singh Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plot in question was recorded in the name of petitioners' predecessor in the basic year of the consolidation operation. Against the basic year entry, a time barred title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") was filed by private respondent which was dismissed in default on 26.11.1990. Against the order dated 26.11.1990, recall application along with prayer for condonation of delay was filed on 16.2.1994. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.6.1995 allowed the recall application setting aside the order dated 26.11.1990 and restored the proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on its original number. Against the order dated 16.6.1995, predecessor of petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Appeal was decided by Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 18.10.1996 directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection on merit after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. Against the appellate order dated 18.10.1996, revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the petitioners, which has been decided under the impugned order dated 17.2.2006. Against the order dated 17.2.2006, review application was filed on behalf of the petitioners, which has been rejected under the order dated 4.12.2024, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgement / order dated 4.12.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi Camp Ballia in Case No.RST 1654 of 2006 (Computerized Case No.20065415900001654) (Vinod and Others vs. Paras Nath and others), under Section 41 of U.P.C.H. Act (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). ii. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order (in part) dated 17.2.2006 passed in Revision No.331/295/1541 (Vinod and others vs. Parasnath and others), under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition). iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgement / order dated 16.6.1995 passed in Restoration No.214 (Computerized Case No.20065415900001654) (Vinod Vs. Parasnath), under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the title objection filed by private respondents was dismissed in default and recall application has been filed after about 4 years which has been allowed in arbitrary manner without considering the objection of the petitioners. He further submitted that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioners has been decided in arbitrary manner by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation / Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further submitted that filing of recall application after more than 4 years in the title objection filed by private respondent himself is abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the private respondent on the basis of an order restoring the proceeding of title objection started interference with the possession of the petitioners, as such, the order dismissing the title objection should be maintained. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the title objection filed by private respondent was dismissed for non-prosecution but on the recall application the proceeding of title objection has been restored on its original number. 6. The perusal of the order passed by the consolidation authorities demonstrates that the title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the private respondents has been restored on its original number under the order dated 16.6.1995 passed by the consolidation officer which has been maintained under the impugned revisional order dated 17.2.2006 as well as 4.12.2024 as such there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is dismissed and respondent no.3 / Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the aforementioned title objection after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law expeditiously. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad