JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Rishikesh Tripathi, Counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 10 and Mr. Achal Singh, Counsel for respondent No.6-A/Gram Sabha.

2. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Banda (respondent No.3) in Appeal No.32 of 2017 as well as for mandamus directing the respondent No.5/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Atarra, District-Banda to record the name of the petitioners in revenue record in compliance of the order dated 27.05.1977 and issue fresh Khatauni to the petitioners.

3. Stamp report has reported laches of 2038 days in filing the petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners were not impleaded by the contesting respondent in the appeal filed against the order of Assistant Officer of Consolidation, as such petitioners were not aware about the appellate order, as soon as, they came to know about the appellate order, the instant writ petition has been filed. In view of submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner the writ petition is being entertained as the laches has been explained.

5. Brief facts of the case are that village-Oran, Tehsil-Atarra, District-Banda came under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act through notification dated 05.05.1972 under Section-4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. According to the petitioners, an order was passed by Assistant Officer of Consolidation on the basis of compromise on 27.05.1977 by which name of the petitioners' ancestors was ordered to be recorded over the plot in dispute. The notification under Section 6 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act took place on 07.06.2016 in respect to village-Oran. After the cancellation of consolidation proceeding under Section 6 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act, the contesting respondents filed an appeal along with application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT in the year 2017. According to the petitioners, petitioners were not impleaded in the appeal and without any notice or opportunity afforded to the petitioners impugned order has been passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation setting aside the order dated 27.05.1977 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer and abated the proceeding of the case, Hence this writ petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that order dated 27.05.1977 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer has attained finality, as such the petitioners are entitled to the benefit as provided under Section 6 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act.. He further submitted that appeal filed by contesting respondents along with application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT after issuance of notification under Section 6 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was not maintainable, but the same has been illegally entertained and order dated 27.05.1977 has been set aside. He further submitted that petitioners have not been impleaded as party in the appeal as such the impugned order is also liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of Principle of Natural Justice. He next submitted that after issuance of the notification under Section 6 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act appeal filed by contesting respondent was not maintainable in view of law laid down by this Court in case of Shriram and 4 others v. State of U.P. and 5 others decided on 01.03.2023 in which it has been held that revision filed after issuance of notification under Section 6 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act is not maintainable.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Rishikesh Tripathi, re