Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113376 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2260 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nadeem Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Srivastav,Rishabh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of remand passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20.07.2007. The petitioners have claimed title on the footing of a will which ousts the son from his heritable rights in the property. 2. Shri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners' title is impeccable being based on a will of the testator. 3. Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the will on which the petitioner is claiming title is disputed and has not been proven in any Court of law. The respondent no. 5 claims title on a hibanama. Parties trace their lineage to a common ancestor. 4. The aforesaid documents are liable to be tested on their merits after introduction of before the competent authority. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 6. It is evident that both the parties have made their rival claims on the basis of a will deed and hibanama respectively. The aforesaid documents have to be duly proved as per law before the competent authority before their title and claims can be determined. This requires proper adjudication by the competent authorities. By the impugned order the Deputy Director of Consolidation has remanded the matter to the competent court for adjudication. The Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 20.07.2007. 7. Faced with this Shri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel assisted by Shri Sujeet Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are trying to alienate the property and will render the cause infructuous. In the interest of justice he fairly submits that the consolidation authorities below be directed to decide the proceedings in accordance with law in a stipulated time frame and the application for interim relief too may be decided in a shorter time frame so as to prevent the alienation of the property or alteration of its character. 8. Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 as well as Shri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel do not have any serious objection to the aforesaid prayer. 9. Shri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the consolidation authorities are under an obligation of law to decide proceedings in a reasonable time frame after hearing the necessary parties. 10. In the wake of the preceding discussion, the matter is remitted with the following directions: i. The consolidation authorities shall ensure that all necessary parties are impleaded in the proceedings before the court below. ii. The Consolidation Officer shall notice all the necessary parties iii. The proceedings shall be decided on priority and preferably within a period of six months after receipt of a copy of this order. 11. All parties are directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the court below. 12. In case an application for interim relief is filed, the Consolidation Officer shall decide the same within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the application as well as a copy of this order. 13.The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Vandit Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad