Allahabad High Court
SHYAM SUNDARversusSETTLEMENT OFFICER OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The court directed the Settlement Officer to decide the appeal within six weeks, thereby granting the writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Shyam Sundar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gorakhpur to decide Appeal No. 0162 of 2025 (Gajendranath Mishra vs. Shyam Sundar) under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioner alleged that the appeal had been remanded for fresh consideration under Section 9-A(2) and that the Consolidation Officer had unduly delayed the decision, causing potential irreparable loss. The court examined the petition without delving into the merits of the underlying dispute, focusing instead on the statutory duty to decide the appeal expeditiously. It held that the Settlement Officer must decide the appeal within six weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order, after providing a hearing to the parties. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of after issuing the mandatory direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gorakhpur has failed to decide Appeal No. 0162 of 2025 within a reasonable time as mandated by Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Settlement Officer to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — s. 11(1), 9-A(2)
Subjects
- mandamus
- delay in adjudication
- appeal disposal
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
- writ petition
- settlement officer
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 1775 of 2026
Shyam Sundar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Settlement Officer Of Consolidation Gorakhpur
And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari, Vikash Kumar
Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
no.1 to decide the Case / Appeal No.0162 of 2025, Computerized Case
No.202554053100000162 (Gajendranath Mishra vs. Shyamsundar and others), under
Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble
Court.
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus in the interest of justice
call for entire record and examined the act and conduct for the purpose of linger up
the case is illegal manner by the respondent no.1, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury. "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the title appeal, the
matter was remanded back before Consolidation Officer vide order dated
28.11.2025 to decide the title objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H.
Act afresh. He further submitted that against the interlocutory order
passed by the Consolidation Officer for the evidence of the witness,
appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act has been again filed and the
record of the proceeding has been summoned in appeal, as such, pending
appeal should be decided on day today basis. He further submitted that
WRIB No. 1775 of 2026
2
petitioner is sole opposite party in the aforementioned appeal. He further
submitted that the copy of order sheet of the case has been annexed as
Annexure No.6 to the petition in order to demonstrate that the case is not
proceeding expeditiously.
4. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and keeping in
view of the facts and circumstances, respondent no.1/ Settlement Officer
of Consolidation, Gorakhpur is directed to decide the aforementioned
Appeal No.0162 of 2025, Computerized Case No.202554053100000162
(Gajendranath Mishra vs. Shyamsundar and others), under Section 11 (1)
of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties
in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before
him.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
May 7, 2026
Rameez
Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…