The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri Ashish Chandra Nishad, learned standing counsel for the state respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot of khata no.74, situated in village Mataundh, Pergana, Tahasil & District- Banda which was recorded in the basic year khatauni in the name of Gulab Shankar and Krishna Kumar (petitioner). Plot of khata no.185 was recorded in the name of petitioner’s mother and Gulab Shanker and plot of khata no.190 was recorded in the name of Gulab Shanker and petitioner. The family pedigree of petitioner and respondent no.3 is as under:-

Gulab Shanker died issueless, as such, name of petitioner and respondent no.3 were recorded on the basis of Pa Ka 11 in the year 1983. During consolidation operation, plots of aforementioned khata were ordered to be recorded as ½ share each in the name of petitioner and respondent no.3 by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 26.11.1990 passed on the basis of compromise. Petitioner challenged the order dated 26.11.1990 by way of appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein referred to as “U.P. C.H. Act”) along with prayer for condonation of delay of about 27 years in filing appeal. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 5.9.2018 condoned the delay of 27 year, set aside the order dated 26.11.1990 and remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh on merit. Respondent no.3 challenged the appellate order dated 5.9.2018 through revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was registered as Revision No.0022 of 2019 (Computerized Case No.201953071100022). The Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the remand order dated 5.9.2018 passed in appeal, decided the title objection vide order dated 23.10.2020, declaring the ¾ share of petitioner and ¼ share of respondent no.3 in respect to plots of khata nos. 74 & 190. On the basis of the order dated 23.10.2020, Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 18.1.2023 under Rule 109-A of the U.P. C.H. Rules, 1954 for implementation of the order. Respondent no.3 filed two separate appeals against the order dated 23.10.2020 and 18.1.2023 which are pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In Revision No.0022 of 2019, filed by respondent no.3, petitioner filed his objection, stating about the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 23.10.2020 & 18.1.2023 as well as pendency of the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 23.10.2020 and 18.1.2023 but the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 27.3.2024 allowed the Revision No.0022 of 2019, setting side the order dated 5.9.2018 passed in appeal and remanded the matter before the appellate court/Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh after proper opportunity of hearing to respondent no.3 in respect to inordinate delay of 27 years in filing appeal. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner for following reliefs:-

“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 27.3.2024 passed by respondent no.2/D.D.C., Banda in Revision No.22/2019 (Sant Kumar vs. Krishna Kumar), under Section 48(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act (Computer Case No.2019530711000022) (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the plot in dispute in pursuance of the impugned order and maintain status quo on the spot.”

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 26.11.1990 on the basis of fraudulent compromise, as such, the same has been rightly set aside in appeal after condonation of delay in filing appeal as we