RAJVEER AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                    WRIT - B No. - 3291 of 2025

Rajveer And Another
                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                              Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Anil Kumar, Satish Kumar
                                    Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : Avinash Chandra Srivastava,
                                    C.S.C.

Court No. - 54
                 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners is taken on
record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel and perused the record.

3. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter
alia, seeking the following prayers:-

     "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
     mandamus directing the respondent authorities to
     make an entry and correct the recent revenue records
     in respect of order dated 05.07.2016 passed by
     Consolidation Officer, Sadar Mainpuri in Case No.
     578/2015-16 under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act
     (Rajveer and others) Vs. State), Mauja Harere,
     Tehsil Karhal, District- Mainpuri..

     ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
     mandamus directing the respondent authority to
     consider and decide the representation dated
     19.06.2025 of the petitioner forthwith."
                                                    WRIB No. 3291 of 2025
                           2


4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction/omission at the part
of the District authorities concerned in not giving effect to the
order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Assistant Consolidation
Officer in land revenue record in accordance with the provisions
of law as enunciated under Section 6(2) of U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act.

5. It is submitted that Consolidation operations in the village
Hardauli were cancelled by a notification issued under Section
6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act promulgated on 21.2.2019. Prior to the
cancellation of the consolidation operation an order dated
15.10.1990 had been passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in
case No.2451 under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. As per para 9 of
the writ petition, the aforesaid order dated 15.10.1990 has
attained finality between the parties, inasmuch as same has not
been assailed before any court competent. It is, thus, submitted
that consolidation authorities are under a legal obligation, in
terms of Section 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, to implement the order
dated 15.10.1990 in land revenue records, which had attained
finality prior to the cessation of the consolidation operations by
virtue of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act.

6. Learned Standing Counsel has contended that the grievance of
the petitioner can more appropriately be redressed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, who may be directed to decide a fresh
representation, to be moved by the petitioner, ventilating his
grievance, within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this
Court.

7. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be
served in keeping the present matter pending; therefore, this
Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ
petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case
as mentioned in the present writ petition, with a direction that the
petitioner shall be at liberty to move a fresh representation qua
his grievance as averred in the instance writ petition, along with a
self attested copy of the instant writ petition and a certified copy
                                                                                           WRIB No. 3291 of 2025
                                                                  3


                                        of the order of the date, before the District Deputy Director of
                                        Consolidation within a period of two weeks from today, who
                                        shall, either himself or through a authority competent, decide the
                                        said representation, in accordance with law, expeditiously,
                                        preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing
                                        of the aforesaid representation, if there is no other legal
                                        impediment.

                                        8. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed
                                        of.




                                        March 19, 2026
                                        Neetu

                                                                                    (Dinesh Pathak,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NEETU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad