Allahabad High Court
RADHEY RAMAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The Court directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the title objection within three months after affording a proper hearing, thereby granting the mandamus.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Rustampur, Gorakhpur, to decide a title objection under Section 9‑A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Housing Act (case No. 1333 of 2018). The objection remained pending despite a remand order under Section 48 of the same Act and a statutory deadline of nine months. The petitioners argued that the officer had failed to decide within the prescribed period and requested expeditious disposal. The Court, without addressing the merits of the underlying title dispute, ordered the Consolidation Officer to hear the parties and decide the objection within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order. Consequently, the writ petition was finally disposed. The decision emphasizes the duty of administrative officers to adhere to statutory time‑limits and the availability of mandamus to enforce such compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Consolidation Officer to decide a title objection within the statutory period prescribed under Section 9‑A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Housing Act.
- Whether the delay in deciding the objection violates the statutory deadline and warrants judicial intervention.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Housing Act — s. 48, 9-A(2)
Subjects
- mandamus
- consolidation officer
- title objection
- Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Housing Act
- statutory time limit
- writ petition
- administrative delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 2163 of 2026
Radhey Raman And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adya Prasad Tewari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for mandamus directing
the respondent no.2/ Consolidation Officer, Rustampur,
Gorakhpur to conclude and decide the objection under Section
9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act being Case No.1333 of 2018 (Anil
Kumar and 2 others vs. Chandra Prakah and others) within
stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
pursuance of the remand order passed in revision under Section
48 of U.P.C.H. Act, the matter is pending before Consolidation
Officer. He further submitted that the writ petition filed by
petitioner was dismissed and Consolidation Officer was
directed to decide the title objection within period of 9 months
but till date title objection has not been decided, as such,
appropriate direction be issued for expeditious disposal of title
objection within time bound period.
4. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and
keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, respondent
WRIB No. 2163 of 2026
2
no.2/ Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the
aforementioned title objection after affording proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law
expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from
the date of production of certified copy of this order before
him.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
May 14, 2026
Rameez
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…