Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 59753 (ALL)

ATIQUR RAHMAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

WRIB/1953/2025 · 2025-05-25

Chandra Kumar Rai

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89118 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1953 of 2025 Petitioner :- Atiqur Rahman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Patel,Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohit Verma,Sachida Nand Tripathi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Patel, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Sri Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed for following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the ex- party impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 2/Consolidation Officer Ramnagar Badsara-I in case no. 0025 of 2023 (Irfan Ahmad and other Vs. Abu Zafar Masood) and ex-party impugned order 10.01.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 in case no. 595/693 of 2022-2023 (Irfan Ahmad and others Vs. Abu Zafar Masood and others). 2. To issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deep fit and proper under this facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Award the cost of the petition against respondents and in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that order dated 29.02.2024 has been passed in illegal and arbitrary manner by the Consolidation Officer, as such the same should be set aside. He further submitted that against the order dated 29.02.2024 the restoration application dated 02.04.2024 filed on behalf of the petitioners along with the prayer for condonation of delay is pending before the Consolidation Officer, but Consolidation Officer is not proceeding with the matter and private respondents are making interference with the possession of the petitioner, as such necessary protection should be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submitted that in view of the pendency of the restoration application dated 02.04.2024 before the Consolidation Officer, no relief can be granted in the instant petition. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit, the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the respondent no. 2-Consolidation Officer to decide the petitioner's time barred restoration application dated 02.04.2024 in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad