PARASNATHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - B No. - 2683 of 2026

Parasnath
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Bhagyawati Verma, Ram Raj Prajapati
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C.

Court No. - 51
                     HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Raj Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
Consolidation Officer to decide the objection filed by the petitioner in
proceedings under Section 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred to 'CH Act') initiated at the instance of the
respondent No.4.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as he has filed his
objection raising the maintainability of the application, therefore his
objections should be disposed of at the preliminary stage before deciding
the case registered under Section 12 of the CH Act.

4. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

5. It is evident from the contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner that he wants his objection to be decided regarding the
maintainability of the case registered under Section 12 of the Act filed by
respondent No.4.

6. Once his objection is allowed, the entire case will be decided finally.
Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to consider his objection by
framing a preliminary issue appears to be misconceived in view of the
fact that while deciding the case itself his objections can be considered
                                                                                           WRIB No. 2683 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    and a common order can be passed.

                                    7. In view of the aforesaid, no direction is required to be issued to the
                                    Consolidation Officer as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner
                                    in the present petition.

                                    8. As the objection of the petitioner regarding the maintainability and
                                    merits of the case are already pending in the case registered under section
                                    12(5) of C.H. Act by respondent No.4, it is expected by the Consolidation
                                    Officer to decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the
                                    petitioner and considering his objection filed in it.

                                    9. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with
                                    the direction to respondent No.3 to decide the case pending before him in
                                    accordance with under section 12 of the CH Act in accordance with law
                                    after hearing the petitioner and considering his objection within a period
                                    of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this
                                    order.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    Kumar Manish




Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad