HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3343 of 2026 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Ram Bahadur Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the learned standing counsel for the state respondents 1 to 4. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the notice to the private respondent no. 5, is being dispensed with. The writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 11.7.2024, order dated 26.11.2025, and order dated 25.4.2026, passed by the CO, SOC and the DDC, Etah. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute relates to Khata number 418, comprised of Gata No.819, 868, 369, 870, 944 area 0.730, 0.0120, 0.4660, 0.3310 hectares, situated in village Ghumari, Pargana Barna, Tehsil Aliganj, District Etah. The said Khata 418 was recorded in the name of Ram Naresh, respondent no. 5, on the strength of an order which was subject matter of revision number 69, under section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The proceedings of the said revision was stayed on the intervention of the consolidation operations in the village. The name of Ram Naresh, respondent no. 5, came to be recorded over Khata No. 229, containing Gata number 418, area 0.829 hectares, vide order of the SO dated 9.11.2022, and the same was reflected in the CH Form 5 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). An application was moved on behalf of the petitioner dated 13.12.2022 to correct the entry in CH Form 5. The entry was corrected by the ACO vide order dated 16.12.2022 in the CH Form 5 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The respondent no. 5 filed objections under section 9A(2) of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Bahadur Pal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manjul Mishra Fateh Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the CH Act, and the petitioner filed her reply to the objections. The CO vide order dated 11.7.2024 allowed the objections of respondent no. 5, directing the parties to submit their objections at the time of publication of notification under section 9 of the CH Act. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.2024, preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 105 of 2024, under section 11(1) before the SOC, Etah, which appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2025. The petitioner thereafter filed revision before the DDC, being Revision No. 408 of 2025, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the name of the petitioner stood recorded over khata number 418 in the basic year Khatauni. The parties have been litigating since 1994. The case filed by the respondent Ram Naresh before the SDO Aliganj, Etah, was partly allowed by order dated 13.6.1999, and the order dated 1.10.1994 was set aside. However, the proceedings stood abated on the intervention of the consolidation operations. The findings of the courts below are illegal, perverse, and liable to be set aside. It is accordingly prayed that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Learned standing counsel on the other hand submits that the consolidation authorities were justified in passing the impugned orders which call for no interference by this court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed in limne. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I find that the orders impugned do not suffer from any infirmity warranting an interference by this court. The DDC, Etah, in his order dated 25.4.2026 has rightly observed that once CH Form 5 has been issued, any objections in respect thereof is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the CH Act. There is no provision to issue fresh CH Form 5. The CO under the order dated 11.7.2024 has merely issued notices to the tenure holders affected by Khata No. 418 in terms of section 9 of the CH Act. The order dated 11.7.2024 is interlocutory and no appeal is maintainable against the said order under section 11(1) of the CH Act. The court further finds that the revision was preferred by the petitioner. The DDC has dismissed the revision and has required the parties to appear before the consolidation officer (final records) WRIB No. 3343 of 2026 2 Etah, in furtherance of the proceedings under section 9 of the CH Act. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that pursuant to the order of the DDC dated 25.4.2026, the proceedings under section 9 of the CH Act have not been brought to its logical end. He submits that a direction be issued to the CO (Final Record), Etah, respondent no. 4, to finalize the proceedings under section 9 of the CH Act within a time frame fixed by this court. Learned standing counsel appearing for the state respondents has no objection to the said proposition, but submits that the proceedings may have been finalized. Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of by requiring the CO (Final Record), Etah, Respondent No. 4 to finalize the proceedings under section 9 of the CH Act, if not already finalized, within four months from the date of service of the order of this court before him, strictly in accordance with law. September 18, 2026 Deepak/ WRIB No. 3343 of 2026 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad