Transposition of parties requires substantiation, as mere assertions of collusion or abandonment are insufficient; parties must demonstrate diligence and a clear interest in the outcome.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Somesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Amar Deep Yadav on behalf of respondent no. 2.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 14/10/2025 passed by the Settlement of Consolidation whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioners, which is formed for being transposed as appellants before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation where the appeal preferred by some of the private respondents is under consideration in accordance with the remand order passed by this Court on 29/02/2024 in Writ Petition B No. 238 of 2024.

3. The facts in brief as submitted by the petitioners are that the dispute pertains to the land situated Gata No. 314 area 0 – 8 – 17, situated at Village Aseni, Paragana Dewa Tehsil, Nawabganj district, Barabanki, which was initially recorded in the name of Ghasite. Ghasite had 4 sons, namely Haripal, Bihari, Kailas and Mangal. Bihari died during the lifetime of Ghasitay. After the death of Ghasitay, the 3 surviving sons got their names mutated in the revenue records, showing 1/3 share each.

4. During the Consolidation proceedings, Ragghu, the son of Bihari, filed objections under section 9(A)1 of the U.P Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 claiming 1/4th share in the property, and accordingly, by means of an order dated 11/08/1999 his objection was allowed, and the shares of the co-sharers were decided as one-fourth each.

5. Haripal filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for recalling the order dated 11/08/1999 on 24/04/2001. During the proceedings, Haripal sold 1/3rd share of the property to the petitioners, and on 09/05/2003, the case was restored to its original number, and subsequently dismissed for non-presence of the parties on 04/11/2011.

6. Against the order dated 04/11/2011, only Kailash and Mangal filed an appeal under section 11 (1) of the Act of 1953, which was registered as case No. 524/2015 (Kailash and others vs Ragghu). According to Ragghu, the disputed land was his ancestral land where his father Bihari had a 1/4 share in the property, along with 3 uncles. Before the appellate authority petitioners were impleaded as opposite parties on the basis of a sale deed executed by Harpal pertaining to 1/3 share of the property in dispute.

7. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation (Appellate Authority) decided the appeal vide his order dated 30/08/2013 on the basis of a compromise dated 29/08/2013.

8. Ragghu being aggrieved by the order dated 30/08/2013, preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, challenging the compromise and stating that he was not a party to the same, and one of the parties to the compromise was a minor. The revisional authority, after due consideration of the arguments and on the basis of the material record, upheld the contention of Ragghu and set aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 20/08/2013 and restored the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 11/08/1999 by means of an order dated 03/02/2024.

9. Petitioners had approached this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 3.2.2024 by filing a writ petition, being Writ ‘B’ No. 238 of 2024. This Court was of the view that the matter ought to have been remanded by the Director of Consolidation rather than affirming the order dated 11/08/1999, and consequently allowed the writ petition remanding the matter back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh on merits