Procedural dismissals do not prevent merits of subsequent appeals, ensuring timely consideration based on applicable laws.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Settlement Officer of Consolidation as respondent no.6 in the array of the parties of the writ petition during course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"i. issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.10.2023 passed by D.D.C. Gorakhpur by which the application of petitioners under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act was illegally rejected and order dated 12.4.2022 passed by the Consolidation Officer by which the application of petitioners under Rule 109 of U.P.C.H. Rules was illegally rejected.

ii. issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to reconsider the application of petitioners under Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act and also direct the consolidation authority to implement the order passed by the consolidation authority within stipulated time."

4. On 13.11.2024 following order was passed by this Court:

"1. Stamp reporter has reported laches of 210 days in filing the instant petition, which has been explained by the petitioners in the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the proceeding under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 Consolidation Officer has decided the proceeding vide order dated 31.3.2006. He further submitted that the appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 filed by one Sunil Kumar Banerji has been dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 20.7.2006. He further submitted that after dismissal of the appeal, the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 has been initiated by the petitioners on 26.8.2016. He next submitted that the revision under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 filed by Sunil Kumar Banerji has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 4.7.2018. He further submitted that village has been de-notified under Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 19.10.2013. He further submitted that proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 has been dismissed as not maintainable by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that village has been de-notified on 19.10.2013 and the instant proceeding has been initiated on the basis of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 1.3.2006, as such, the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 is not maintainable. He further submitted that the petitioners initiated proceedings under Section 48 (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for the implementation of the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 26.9.2023.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents shall obtain instruction in the matter within two weeks.

4. Put up this case as fresh on 28.11.2024."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have also filed an appeal under Rule 109-A (3) of U.P.C.H. Rules before Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 16.4.2022, which has been registered as Appeal No.2022540531000213. He further placed the grounds of appeal, which is annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that the fact regarding pendency of appeal under Rule 109-A (3) of U.P.C.H. Rules could not be disclosed in the writ petition. He further submitted that necessary pleading regarding pendency of appeal has been made in t