HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 2637 of 2026 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Shri S.M.A. Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, has accepted notice of the writ petition on behalf of the respondent no. 5 i.e. Land Management Committee of Village Gesupur, Pargana & Tehsil-Sikandarabad, District-Bulandshahar. The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Bulandshahar, and Revenue Authorities, Tehsil-Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar to correct the revenue entries of the petitioners as per the entry of CH Form 11 and CH Form 23 with regard to Patta of the petitioners. A further prayer in the nature of the mandamus commanding the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land in question allotted to them under the leases has also been prayed for. Shri Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners as well as their predecessors in interest were granted Sirdari leases as far as back in the year 1968 and mutation orders in respect of the grant of leases was accordingly passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Sikandarabad, vide order dated 29.05.1968. The mutation order passed in favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioner no. 2 has been brought on record as anneuxre 4 to the writ petition. It is next contended that the Consolidation Operations intervened, objections were filed under Section 9A-2 which came to be decided by Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh Akram Khan And 12 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) order dated 02.05.1995 brought on record as Anneuxre no. 35 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the orders the entries were made in CH Form 11 as well as CH form 23. However, subsequent entries in the Revenue Records could not be made and the Consolidation Operations were de-notified some time in the year 2008. He further submits that since the predecessors in interest of the petitioners were granted Sirdari leases which subsequently by passage of time matured into the Bhumidhari rights and as such their names are liable to be recorded over the relevant Revenue Records and in such view of the matter appropriate directions be issued, as prayed for. Shri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel, submits that Notification under Section 52 (1) of the CH Act admittedly has taken place in the year 2008. The orders sought to be enforced have been passed during the period the Consolidation Operations were very much going on and therefore, the compliance of the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities cannot be done under Rule 109-A of the Rules of the CH Rules as the Consolidation Authorities seized to have any power after Notification under Section 52. He further submits that the petitioners may approach the Tehsil Authorities and invoke the provisions under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Having heard, respective counsels for the parties, I find substance in the submissions advanced by Shri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel. Admittedly, after Notification under Section 52 (1) of the CH Act, the Consolidation Authorities would cease to have powers to enforce the orders and as such recourse to the Provisions of Rule 109-A of the CH Rules is not available to the petitioners. However, since the petitioners have matured their rights over the land allotted to them under the leases their names are required to be recorded over the respective lands in question. In such circumstances, liberty is granted to the petitioners to invoke the Provisions of Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, by filing appropriate proceedings. In the eventuality of initiating the proceedings under UP Revenue Code, WRIB No. 2637 of 2026 2 2006, before the Tehsildar concerned, within a period of three weeks from today, it is expected from the Tehsildar concerned to consider all aspects of the matter, provide opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and pass appropriate orders on the applications moved by the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the rights of the petitioners matured under the respective leases granted to the predecessors in interest of the petitioners. The Tehsildar concerned, is expected to examine the respective rights and thereafter pass orders strictly in accordance with law. Till the period of three months or till the decision by the Tehsildar concerned, which ever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from their respective holdings. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed off. September 11, 2026 Deepak/ WRIB No. 2637 of 2026 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad