HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1002 of 2026 Saurabh Singh and 4 others …..Appellant(s) Versus State of U.P. and 10 others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar, Anil Kumar Rai, C.S.C. Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 6 to 11. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 01.07.2026, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed Writ-B No. 279 of 2025 (Rahul Pratap Singh and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others) and has issued a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude consolidation proceedings in the village in question, strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ('the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 2 SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026 3. The appellants, who are five in number, were not parties to the writ petition, however, an application for intervention/impleadment was filed before the writ court on behalf of six persons including these five appellants with a prayer to implead them as respondents in the writ petition. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the said application was not disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 4. We find that there is no application seeking leave to file appeal. At the same time, we have perused the first paragraph of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein it has been indicated that counsel for the intervener was also heard and, therefore, we proceed to consider the appeal as non-defective and on merits. 5. The writ petition giving rise to the appeal was filed by the private respondents taking plea that consolidation process in Gram Sabha Biral, Tehsil Budhna, District Muzaffarnagar had not been completed for the last 34 years and, accordingly, direction was sought for the respondent authorities to take appropriate action regarding demarcation and transfer of possession and to complete the consolidation proceedings in accordance with law. 6. When the writ petition initially came up before the learned Single Judge, instructions were called from the State-respondents, pursuant whereto instructions dated 03.03.3025/01.03.2025 were placed before the learned Single Judge, which have been reproduced in paragraph No. 11 of the order. Further, another instructions dated 04.09.2025 have been reproduced in paragraph No. 12 of the order and, thereafter, the learned Single Judge has recorded his conclusion that since the village in question was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 25.08.1990 and the consolidation operations had not been completed despite expiry of more than 35 years, in case the reasons given in the instructions for not completing consolidation proceedings were accepted, the purpose of enactment of the Act would be frustrated. 7. Learned Single Judge, thereafter, after placing reliance on judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 1990 (Rajaram 3 SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026 Ojha Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow and others), decided on 31.03.2014, 2015 (126) RD 124, Jasmit Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2016 (131) RD 478 and Dalip Singh and others Vs. Vikram Singh and others: 2015 (128) RD 666, came to the conclusion that consolidation proceedings should be completed within a time bound period and, consequently, allowed the writ petition by issuing directions, already indicated herein-before. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has made submissions that the instructions produced before the writ court were not carefully analysed by the learned Single Judge and once it was indicated in the instructions that most of the villagers were opposing the consolidation operations and that certain appeals and restoration applications were pending disposal, learned Single Judge should not have issued the directions for completion of consolidation proceedings and, therefore, the order of the writ court is liable to be set aside. Further submission has been made that in view of provisions of Section 6 read with Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act, since holding of conslidation operations is not in public interest, no direction for their completion should have been issued. 9. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the order and has made submissions that a thoughtful consideration has been made by learned Single Judge to arrive a conclusion based upon the decisions of this Court and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order impugned. 10. Learned counsel for private respondents has made submissions that appellant no. 1 was working as Village Pradhan and, in the said capacity, he had approved a resolution dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Gaon Sabha for completion of the consolidation operations and, therefore, at least the appellant no. 1 has no locus to raise a challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge that has been passed on the same lines. 11. Further submission has been made that there being more than 2000 chakholders, objection raised and intervention sought to be made in writ proceedings and further challenge laid by way of appeal at the 4 SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026 instance of only five persons who are encroachers over the Gaon Sabha land, is not sustainable and, therefore, the appeal has no force. 12. Placing reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Subhash Chand and others Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2014 (123) RD 744, submission has been made that consolidation authorities are not required to await disposal of objections before initiating proceedings for preparation and publication of consolidation schemes under the Act and, therefore, pendency of certain matters, as noted in the instructions, would not be a bar against completion of consolidation proceedings and the learned Single Judge has rightly issued appropriate directions, which need not be interfered with. 13. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 14. As noted herein-before, learned Single Judge has passed a detailed order after reproducing instructions dated 03.03.2025/01.03.2025 and 04.09.2025 in their entirety which, for the sake of brevity, are not being reproduced in this order. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the notification under Section 4(2) of the Act was published in the year 1990 whereafter, time and again, proceedings were attempted to be completed by the consolidation authorities, however, on account of groupism and party politics, some of the villagers did not allow the authorities to complete the process. The instructions further indicate that 51 time-barred appeals and 40 restoration applications were pending and that the officers intended to complete proceedings after disposal of the said time barred appeals/applications. 15. Learned Single Judge, after close scrutiny of the instructions and considering the fact that more than three decades had passed since when the proceedings had begun but the same were not allowed to be completed on account of the reasons indicated herein-before, allowed the writ petition and issued directions for completion of consolidation process. 5 SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026 16. In our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge is based upon the correct interpretation of factual and legal position governing the issue involved and the decisions on applicability of Rule 17, Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, laying down that functions undertaken by the consolidation authorities are legislative in nature and that Rule 17 is not mandatory, have been correctly applied in the facts of the case. 17. In the cited judgment in the case of Subhash Chand (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering various decisions, has laid down that consolidation authorities are not required to await disposal of all objections etc. before initiating and completing proceedings for consolidation schemes. We may also refer to an order dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 152 of 2025, wherein also, after taking into consideration the judgments in the case of Dalip Singh (Supra), Rajaram Ojha (supra) and many other judgments, this Court declined to interfere with the legislative functions of the consolidation authorities and even held a challenge to the same through a public interest litigation, as not maintainable. 18. Once the record indicates that consolidation operations began with issuance of notification under Section 4 in the year 1990,  what prevented the appellants from taking steps either way, has not been explained to us and whenever authorities attempted to complete the process, except for obstructing the same for one reason or the other, nothing was done by the appellants in aid of proceedings. 19. Further, the appellants being only five in number out of more than two thousand villagers, their attempted intervention in the writ petition cannot be treated in a representative capacity on behalf of large number of villagers. In any case, the Court cannot become a party to the obstructions caused by the appellants creating hindrance in completion of statutory functions by the State-respondents. 20. As far as the submission made on behalf of the respondents that appellant no. 1 being Pradhan and having approved resolution towards 6 SPLA No. - 1002 of 2026 completion of consolidation operations has no locus to raise a challenge to the order impugned, we find from the copy of the resolution dated 11.03.2024 produced before us that the resolution had, in fact, indicated about pendency of certain appeals and completion of process after disposal of the same and, therefore, at least to that extent, we are not inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that appellant no. 1 has taken a stand different from the previous one. 21. Nevertheless, mere filing/pendency of certain defective appeals or restoration applications, in our opinion, would not preclude the consolidation authorities from concluding the process by exercising their statutory functions and, in the facts of the case where 36 years have passed since when the consolidation proceedings had begun in terms of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. 22. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 23. The appeal has no force; the same is, therefore, dismissed. (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) September 07, 2026 AKShukla/- Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad