The court affirmed that orders of the Consolidation Officer are not subject to challenge under Article 226, and applications under Rule 109-A are not maintainable when related appeals are pending.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. Vinod Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Narain Rain, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to Khata No. 425 Plot No.251 area 1.7840 hectare situated at Village- Khajuri-Khurd, Koraon, District-Prayagraj. Petitioner and contesting respondents are co-sharer of the aforementioned plot in question. In the proceeding under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act" Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 24.08.2013 dividing share of the parties on the basis of compromise in respect to plot of Khata No.425. A proceeding under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act was initiated at the instance of contesting respondents which was registered as Case No.58 of 2015-16 before Consolidation Officer. The aforementioned proceeding was concluded on 04.01.2016. Appeal filed by petitioner against the order dated 04.01.2016 was dismissed as not maintainable accordingly petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act which was registered as revision No.983 before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revision was allowed vide order dated 01.11.2017 setting aside the order dated 04.01.2016 and 16.09.2016. Contesting respondents challenged the revision order dated 01.11.2017 before this Court through Writ B No.2939 of 2018 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2018 permitting the petitioners of Writ B No.2939 of 2018 who are contesting respondents in the instant writ petition to challenge the order dated 24.08.2013 in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 20.02.2018 contesting respondents filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act along with the prayer for condonation of delay which was registered as Appeal No.28 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In the aforementioned appeal delay in filing the appeal was condoned as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 08.10.2020 allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated 24.08.2013 and remanded the matter back before Consolidation Officer to decide the Case No.277+840+841 Under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. act afresh on merit. Petitioner challenged the order dated 08.10.2020 in revision under Section 48 of U.P.CH.Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation, which is stated to be pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Petitioner also filed Writ B No.1123 of 2022 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2022 directing the petitioner to move a fresh representation along with the order dated 18.12.2020 which shall be decided within a period of three months. The proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules has been initiated by the petitioner by way of application dated 16.08.2022 which was registered as case No.97111 of 2022- 23 with the prayer that illegal construction made by Balkaran and others be removed and possession be delivered to petitioner. Respondent No.3/Consolidation Officer heard the matter and vide order dated 01.03.2024 rejected the application dated 25.08.2022 under the impugned order dated 01.03.2024, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following relief:

"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer, Koraon, Prayagraj

(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directed the Consolidation Authorities to comply the order dared 01.11.2017 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.983 and handed over the possession of Gata No.251 in favour of petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner rejecting the petitioners' application under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules, as such the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted t