JUDGMENT

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Shri Anand Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.07.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda, whereby the restoration application filed by the petitioners was rejected. The petitioners have further sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda, in Restoration Application No. 263/178.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that upon coming to know of the order dated 18.02.2015, the petitioners moved an application for restoration of the aforesaid order on 06.12.2023, on the ground that, after denotification of the village under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss if any alteration were made in their Chak and the restoration application filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were allowed without issuing any notice to the petitioners.

4. It is submitted that upon becoming aware of the pending proceedings, the petitioners moved an application for restoration seeking to set aside the order dated 18.02.2015. However, Respondent No. 1, without considering the claim of the petitioners, rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 25.07.2026 observing that the petitioners have an opportunity to contest the case before the Consolidation Officer, although the denotification of the village had already taken place on 19.02.2009.

5. It is submitted that, since the proceedings had already been finalized vide order dated 29.04.2008, the concerned village had been denotified on 19.02.2009, and the final record of rights had been prepared, Respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain the restoration application filed by the private Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the absence of any reference from the subordinate authority. The consolidation authorities are not vested with any power of review or inherent power to entertain a restoration application filed by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the absence of any pending reference.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that the restoration application was filed against the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda, on 11.12.2023, along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. It was further submitted that the restoration application had been filed only to keep the matter pending. Earlier, the restoration application filed by the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 had been allowed by the court below vide order dated 18.02.2015, and the matter had been referred to the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, for submission of comments along with the reference. It was submitted that the restoration application had been filed by the petitioners after an inordinate delay of several years without any proper explanation and, therefore, Respondent No. 1 had rightly dismissed the same on the ground of delay and had rightly refused to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

7. Perused the record.

8. A perusal of the record shows that Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda, vide order dated 18.02.2015, had allowed two restoration applications dated 10.01.2014, one filed by Dukhharan and the other by Meera Devi, and thereafter fixed the matter for final hearing. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer and summoned the reference along with the co