Allahabad High Court
DOODH NATH AND OTHERSversusASSTT. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER GKP. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the Consolidation Officer’s final order under Section 9‑A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act resolved the dispute.
Summary
Petitioners Doodh Nath and others filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash three orders dated 4‑Jan‑1997, 30‑Jul‑1999 and 31‑Dec‑1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer, and mandamus directing respondents not to disturb their peaceful possession of land (Araji No. 299). The High Court initially stayed any transfer of the disputed property and issued notices to additional respondents. On 16‑Jan‑2018 the Court clarified that its earlier stay would not impede the Consolidation Officer’s statutory proceedings and granted petitioners three weeks to file objections. The private respondents later produced the Consolidation Officer’s final order dated 5‑Jul‑2018, wherein the dispute was decided under Section 9‑A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, rendering the writ petition moot. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition as infructuous and vacated its interim order.
Issues considered
- Whether the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the respondents can be directed by mandamus to refrain from interfering with petitioners' possession of the disputed land.
- Whether the filing of a final order by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9‑A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act makes the writ petition infructuous.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act — s. 9-A(2)
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Consolidation Officer
- Section 9-A
- infructuous
- property dispute
- peaceful possession
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 8086 of 2000
Doodh Nath And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Asstt. Consolidation Officer Gkp. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : V.P.Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sachida Nand Tripathi
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Case called out as a mentioned case.
2. Counsel for the petitioners is not present. Sri Sachida Nand
Tripathi, learned counsel for the private respondents is present.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the orders dated 4.1.1997,
30.7.1999 and 31.12.1999 passed by the respondent
nos. 1 to 4 (Annexure Nos. 5, 9 and 10 to this writ
petition)
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere
in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the
land in dispute, i.e., araji no.299."
4. On 15.2.2000, following order was passed by this Court:-
"Issue notice to the respondent nos. 5 to 14.
List for admission after service of the notices on the
aforesaid respondents.
Until further orders of the Court, the parties are
directed not to transfer or alienate the property in
dispute."
WRIB No. 8086 of 2000
2
5. On 16.1.2018, following order was passed by this Court:-
"It is clarified that the order dated 15.2.2000, shall not
come in the way of the Consolidation Officer
concerned to proceed in the matter, in accordance with
law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is
granted 3 weeks and no more further time to file
objections / counter to the abatement filed by the
private respondents.
List in the week commencing 5.3.2018.''
6. Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the private respondents has
placed the order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the Consolidation Officer
which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the application dated
22.11.2021 filed along with the affidavit of the respondents in order to
demonstrate that during the pendency of the writ petition before this
Court, the Consolidation Officer has decided the dispute under
Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act vide order dated 5.7.2018. He
submitted that in view of the final order passed by the Consolidation
Officer on 5.7.2018, the instant petition has become infructuous.
7. Considering the final order dated 5.7.2018 passed by
Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, the
instant petition has become infructuous.
8. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
9. Interim order granted by this Court is vacated.
May 6, 2026
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…