Allahabad High Court
WRIB/1160/2025 of ALGOO AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF / PRIN. SECY., REVENUE DEPTT., LKO. AND OTHERS on 11 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1160 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vijay Nandan Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. It is
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - B No. - 1160 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vijay Nandan Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9A(2) has been assailed before this Court as prima facie the order is illegal and arbitrary, especially considering the fact that the Consolidation Officer has relied upon a previous order passed by the revenue authorities prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act coming into force wherein the said proceedings were abated and benefit of the orders passed during such proceedings cannot be given in any subsequent proceedings.
3. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and that the petitioner ought to be availed of this statutory remedy.
4. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, has created various levels of judicial remedies at the stage of the Consolidation Officer: appeal under Section 11 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and finally a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
5. In the present case, there is no dispute that the order of the Consolidation Officer is appealable before the settlement officer. Consequently, since remedies have been created by the statute itself, no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Virendra Singh Yadav, Abhinav Nath Tripathi, Piyush Pathak, Subedar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Algoo And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
extraordinary circumstances exists for exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to his statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953.
6. Further, it is provided that in case such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same with expedition in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of an alternate remedy. December 11, 2025 Ravi/ WRIB No. 1160 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench