DHANANJAY RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     WRIT - B No. - 2614 of 2025

Dhananjay Rai
                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Kumar Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Muktesh Kumar Singh, Nikhil
                            Kumar Mishra, Pradeep Singh

Court No. - 54
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary
amendment in the prayer clause of the petition during course of the
day.

2. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent
nos.4 and 5, Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for Land
Management Committee and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that against the basic year entry of plot
in question, time-barred title objection under Section 9-A(2) of
U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as
the U.P.C.H. Act) was filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 along with
prayer for condonation of delay. Consolidation Officer condoned the
delay in filing the objection and passed the order, which was
challenged in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order
dated 27.08.2024, allowed the revision filed by petitioner, setting
aside the order dated 05.07.2021 and remitted the matter back before
Consolidation Officer to decide the delay condonation matter first,
after inviting objection and affording opportunity of hearing to both the
parties. After remand order passed by Deputy Director of
                                                      WRIB No. 2614 of 2025
                              2


Consolidation, vide order dated 27.08.2024, an application dated
17.04.2025 has been filed on behalf of petitioner for obtaining report
regarding the basic year entry of the plot in question. Consolidation
Officer on 01.07.2025 passed the order that delay condonation matter
shall be considered first and fixed the date for disposal of delay
condonation matter. Hence this petition for the following relief:-

     "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     certiorari for quashing the order dated 01.07.2025 and
     9.10.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer, Rambagh,
     District Mirzapur in Case No. 0808 (109) of 2024 and
     Computer No. 202454165331010808 (Subhash Chandra
     and another Vs. Dhananjay Rai and others) Under
     Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. 1953.

     ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     mandamus        directing    the   Consolidation       Officer,
     Rambagh, District- Mirzapur to decide the application
     dated 17.4.2025 filed by petitioner in Case No.
     0808(109) of 2024 (Subhash Chandra and another Vs.
     Dhananjay Rai and others Under Section 9A(2) of
     U.P.C.H. Act. 1953 within the specific period which may
     kindly be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

     iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
     mandamus        directing    the   Consolidation       Officer,
     Rambagh, District- Mirzapur firstly call the report from
     the authority concerned and also summoned the
     record of Khata No.225 situated in Village-Padara
     Hanuman, Tappa-84, Pargana Kantit, Tahsil-Sadar,
     District-Mirzapur    and     thereafter   decide   the    case
     bearing Case No. 0808(109) of 2024 and Computer No.
     202454165331010808 (Subhash Chandra and another
                                                      WRIB No. 2614 of 2025
                              3


     Vs. Dhananjay Rai and others) on limitation."



4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that title objection filed
by respondent nos.4 and 5 is highly time-barred as such the same
cannot be entertained. He submitted that Consolidation Officer has
condoned the inordinate delay in filing the title objection, accordingly
revision was filed and matter was remitted back before Consolidation
Officer, but Consolidation Officer is not proceeding in accordance
with law. He submitted that an application was filed to obtain
complete report regarding status of basic year entry of the plot in
question but without obtaining report on the application dated
17.04.2025, Consolidation Officer is proceeding with the matter as
such impugned order should be set aside and Consolidation Officer
be directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 17.04.2025
in proper manner.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
respondent no.4 and 5 submitted that in pursuance of the revisional
order, the Consolidation Officer is going to consider the delay
condonation matter first, which is proper exercise of jurisdiction and
no interference is required against the order of Consolidation Officer.
He submitted that petitioner is only interested to linger on the court
proceeding as such he is making applications before Consolidation
Officer.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing the
instant petition before this Court, another order has been passed by
Consolidation Officer on 09.10.2025 closing the opportunity of the
petitioner to file objection against the application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act. He submitted that order dated 09.10.2025 should be
set aside permitting the petitioner to file objection against application
under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
                                                     WRIB No. 2614 of 2025
                             4


7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no
interim order has been passed against the order dated 01.07.2025 as
such Consolidation Officer has closed the opportunity of petitioner to
file objection against application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. He
submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 09.10.2025
passed by Consolidation Officer as such instant writ petition should
be dismissed.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that time barred title objection
has been filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5, against the basic year
entry which is pending before Consolidation Officer.

10. It is material to mention that the delay in filing the time barred
objection was condoned by the Consolidation Officer without notice
and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner accordingly revision filed
by petitioner was allowed and matter was remitted back before
consolidation officer to consider the delay condonation matter afresh
after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consolidation
Officer vide order dated 1.7.2025 has passed the order that delay
condonation matter shall be considered first as such, there is no
illegality in exercise of jurisdiction by the Consolidation Officer and
fixing date for disposal of delay condonation matter. So for as order
dated 9.10.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer closing the
opportunity of the petitioner to file objection against the delay
condonation matter is concerned, the interest of justice requires that
last opportunity be afforded to petitioner to file objection against the
delay condonation matter.

11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, order
dated 9.10.2025 passed by Consolidation Officer by which petitioner's
opportunity to file objection against the application under Section 5 of
                                                                                            WRIB No. 2614 of 2025
                                                                   5


                                    Limitation Act has been closed is liable to be set aside and the same
                                    is hereby set aside and petitioner is granted last opportunity to file
                                    objection against the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act
                                    filed by respondent no.4 & 5 so that delay condonation matter can be
                                    decided in accordance with law. So far as order dated 1.07.2025 is
                                    concerned, the same cannot be interfered with.

                                    12. The writ petition is finally disposed of directing the petitioner to file
                                    objection before Consolidation Officer against the application under
                                    Section 5 of Limitation of Act within a period of three weeks from the
                                    date of production of certified copy of this order and Consolidation
                                    Officer shall decide the delay condonation matter in pursuance of the
                                    order dated 27.08.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation
                                    after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously.


                                                                                     (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    PS*




Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad