Manish Prakash Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

1. Heard Shri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.05.2025 as well as summoning order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 56580 of 2025, (State Vs. Gangotri Pathak & Ors.) arising out of F.I.R. No. 05 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Ashiyana, District Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Mrs. Azoora Khatoon was the recorded tenure holder of Kasra No. 607, Village Aurangabad Khalsa Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow. During the course of consolidation, some order was passed by the Consolidation Officer, due to which, the area of the said plot was reduced. Thereafter, an objection was filed, which was allowed by the then Consolidation Officer vide order dated

06.07.1982, by which, the area of 5 bigha of the said plot was restored. Later on, 3 bigha land of the said plot was acquired by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). Rest of the 2 bigha land of the said plot was sold out in the year 2012 by the legal heirs of recorded tenure holder, namely, Shahjad Ali Khan, Iqbal 2 A482 No. 8727 of 2025 Khan, Muzeeburrahman Khan, Vaseekunissan, Meraj Ali Khan, Sajiya Bano and Najiya Bano in favour of the applicant and two other persons, namely, Gayatri Pathak and Mahmood Ahmad. It is further submitted that LDA sold out the property acquired by it to the private respondent on 25.05.2016. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the dispute related to the property was remanded by this Court in Writ- B No. 3214 of 2018 vide order dated 23.04.2024, with the direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh. Thereafter, in terms of the aforesaid order of this Court, Case No. 5 of 2025 (Azoora Khatoon Vs. State), under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was registered before Consolidation Officer, which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 04.06.2025 with the observation that Khasra No. 607 having an area 5 bigha be registered in the name of Azoora Khatoon w/o Shamsad Ali and to mention 5 bigha in Khata No. 123 of CH Form 11, in place of 3 bigha. The court below also ordered to correct CH Form 23 and also to register the area of Gata No. 607M as 7 bigha, 7 biswa, 10 biswansi in place of area 6 bigha 7 biswa, in Gata No. 607M of Khata No. 636.

4. It is also submitted that as the civil suits are already pending between the parties before the competent authority, but only with the intention to make pressure on the applicant, the F.I.R. was lodged on 05.01.2024 and the charge sheet was also submitted, merely on the basis of presumption that order dated 06.07.1982 was got forged by the applicant. It is vehemently submitted that the Consolidation Officer passed fresh order on 04.06.2025 considering all the controversies in compliance of the order dated

23.04.2024 passed by this Court in aforesaid Writ-B No. 3214 of 2018 and there is no evidence that any document was forged by the applicant. In such circumstances, no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. is made out. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. Ra Jawaharaj & Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 581, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the indulgence of this Court 3 A482 No. 8727 of 2025 is necessary.

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that charge sheet has already been filed and all these defences were raised before the court below. However, he does not dispute the fact that the controversy related to the area of the plot in dispute was remanded back by writ Court in the Writ-B No. 3214 of 2018 to the Consolidation Officer, who passed final order on 04.06.2025, after hearing the parties.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, the record reveals that there is dispute related to the area of Gata No. 607. It is further evident that private respondent purchased the property from LDA, as 3 bigha land of the said plot was already acquired by the LDA and LDA was having right to sold out the land from its area of 3 bigha. However, in relation to the rest of the area of 2 bigha, the applicant purchased the said property from the legal heirs of the recorded tenure holder and the dispute regarding the area of land has already been decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 04.06.2025, in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 3214 of 2018. Order dated 23.04.2024 reads as under: "Order on C.M Application No. 124794 of 2018

1. Heard Shri Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi assisted by Ms. Khushbu Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. An impleadment application has been preferred by Shri Genda Lal and Jagdish as they are affected by the order of this Court dated 13.02.2018 whereby this Court had directed to seal the records and kept in seal cover with the Senior Registrar, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. On that date, the case of the applicants were also listed and due to this order, from the last six years, their matter could not be heard.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel has no objection to the prayer made for impleadment. 4 A482 No. 8727 of 2025

4. Thus, the impleadment application is allowed.

5. The applicants are impleaded as respondent nos. 8 and 9 to the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel amendment/incorporation in the writ petition during the course of the day. for applicants are permitted to make necessary Order on Petition

1. The similar controversy is involved in the aforesaid two petitions thus, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

2. The Writ Petition No. 3214 of 2018 has been filed with the following main prayers:- "That by a writ of certiorari, the order dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure No. 12) as wel as the order dated 23.12.2017 (Annexure 19) passed by the opposite party no. 1 and the order dated 06.07.1982 (Annexure No. 3) as well as order dated 14.02.1989 (Annexure 4) passed by the opposite party no. 2 may kindly be quashed. "

3. The Writ Petition No. 26598 of 2018 has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.12.2017 (Annexure No. 1 to this Writ petition). (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition) (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite party no. 1 to consider the application of the petitioner for recall of the order dated 18.06.2015 and pass an order on merit after giving an opportunity to the petitioner." infructuous as the order dated 06.07.1982 passed by

4. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the present writ petition has become Consolidation Officer in favour of late Azoora Khatoon, who is now represented by respondent nos. 4 and 5 i.e. subsequent purchasers from the legal heirs of late Azoora Khatoon has been set aside by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal by its judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh. Once the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 06.07.1982 has consequential orders of implementation/reference of the order dated 06.07.1982 has also lost efficacy and the petition has become infructuous. in appeal, set aside

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that after the filing of the present writ petition, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal set aside the order dated 06.07.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer, but the impugned orders dated 18.06.2015 and 23.012.2017 were passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which cannot be treated to have come to an end by the order passed by the Sub-ordinate authority in 5 A482 No. 8727 of 2025 appeal by its judgment dated 13.08.2018.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has very fairly admitted this fact that the order dated 14.02.1989 is an order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109(A) on the application of late Azoora Khatoon preferred in pursuance of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 06.07.1982 for the implementation of the same.

7. It is further submitted that after the order of the Consolidation Officer, Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed an order on 18.06.2015 by the order dated for compliance/implementation of granting approval 06.07.1982.

8. It is further submitted that against the said order, the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser of land from Nagar Nigam, has moved a recall application for recalling the order dated 18.06.2015 for making entry in the name of the legal heirs of late Azoora Khatoon in the revenue records which was rejected by order dated 23.12.2017 and at that time, the order dated 06.07.1982 was in existence. After the order of the Settlement Officer in appeal dated 13.08.2018 by which, order dated 06.08.1982 has been set aside. All the consequential orders are also liable to be quashed particularly the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. the higher authority of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that though the orders passed on 14.02.1989, 18.06.2015, 23.12.2017 are now treated to be no more in existence after the setting aside of the order dated 06.07.1982 by order/judgment dated 13.08.2018 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the appeal and the petitioner has an opportunity to present his case before the Consolidation Officer as it has been remanded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by its order dated 13.08.2018, but for clarity, the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation may specifically be quashed by this Court.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, after the passing of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the appeal setting aside the order dated 06.07.1982, it is to be emphasised and noticed that on setting aside of original order dated 06.07.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer, all the consequences that followed relating to implementation of order dated 06.07.1982 under Rule 109-A, which may have even though confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation would fall and would remain no more effective for any purposes. The apprehension of the parties that the orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in confirming the order for implementation of order dated 06.07.1982 and rejecting the recall application of the petitioner by impugned order dated 23.12.2017 is without any basis. The Consolidation Officer after remand of the matter while dealing the case on merits will not be influenced or prejudiced by order or observation by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.06.2015 and 23.12.2017.

11. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the the present writ petition is allowed.

12. The newly impleaded respondent nos. 8 and 9 have also moved an application for modification of the order dated 13.02.2018 for release of their 6 A482 No. 8727 of 2025 case from sealed cover as directed by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2018 as their case is not related to the controversy involved in the present writ petition. The Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 13.02.2018 has passed an order for sealing of the record and keeping it before the Senior Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and thereafter no further direction has ever been issued by this Court. Once the present writ petition is being decided finally by this Court, the Senior Registrar is directed to return the records."

7. Relevant part of the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow in Case No. 05 of 2025 is as under : "ग्राम औरंगाबाद खालसा परगना िबजनौर तहसील सरोजनीनगर िजला लखनऊ के गाटा सं० 607 के सम्बन्ध में उपरोक्त िनष्कषोर्ं के आधार पर वाद िनणीर्त िकया जाता है। आधारवषर् के खाता सं० 87 में गाटा सं० 607 पूवर्वत 5 बीघा श्रीमती अजोरा खातून पत्नी शमसाद अली के खाते में अंिकत हो तथा जो०च०आ०पत्र-11 के खाता सं० 123 में 3 बीघा के स्थान पर रकबा 5 बीघा अंिकत हो और इसी अंकन के अनुरूप जो०च०आ०पत्र-23 भी दुरूस्त हो तथा जो०च०आ० पत्र-23 के खाता सं० 636 तालाब खाते में गाटा सं० 607िम रकबा 6-7-0 के स्थान रकबा 7-7-10 सन् 1359 फसली खतौनी के खाता सं० 51 व 201 के अनुरूप दजर् हो। अन्य आपित्तयां िनरस्त हो। मृतक खातेदारों एवं पक्षकारों के स्थान पर उनके िविधक वािरसान एवं प्रितस्थापी दजर् एवं प्रभािवत माने जायेगें।"

8. After examining the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the controversy related to the area has already been decided by the Consolidation Officer.

9. In view of above, the matter requires consideration

10. Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

11. List this case on 03.12.2025.

12. Until further orders of this Court, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed. November 3, 2025 VKS (Rajeev Singh,J.)

1. Heard Shri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 26.05.2025 as well as summoning order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 56580 of 2025, (State Vs. Gangotri Pathak & Ors.) arising out of F.I.R. No. 05 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Ashiyana, District Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Mrs. Azoora Khatoon was the recorded tenure holder of Kasra No. 607, Village Aurangabad Khalsa Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow. During the course of consolidation, some order was passed by the Consolidation Officer, due to which, the area of the said plot was reduced. Thereafter, an objection was filed, which was allowed by the then Consolidation Officer vide order dated

06.07.1982, by which, the area of 5 bigha of the said plot was restored. Later on, 3 bigha land of the said plot was acquired by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). Rest of the 2 bigha land of the said plot was sold out in the year 2012 by the legal heirs of recorded tenure holder, namely, Shahjad Ali Khan, Iqbal 2 A482 No. 8727 of 2025 Khan, Muzeeburrahman Khan, Vaseekunissan, Meraj Ali Khan, Sajiya Bano and Najiya Bano in favour of the applicant and two other persons, namely, Gayatri Pathak and Mahmood Ahmad. It is further submitted that LDA sold out the property acquired by it to the private respondent on 25.05.2016. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the dispute related to the property was remanded by this Court in Writ- B No. 3214 of 2018 vide order dated 23.04.2024, with the direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh. Thereafter, in terms of the aforesaid order of this Court, Case No. 5 of 2025 (Azoora Khatoon Vs. State), under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was registered before Consolidation Officer, which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 04.06.2025 with the observation that Khasra No. 607 having an area 5 bigha be registered in the name of Azoora Khatoon w/o Shamsad Ali and to mention 5 bigha in Khata No. 123 of CH Form 11, in place of 3 bigha. The court below also ordered to correct CH Form 23 and also to register the area of Gata No. 607M as 7 bigha, 7 biswa, 10 biswansi in place of area 6 bigha 7 biswa, in Gata No. 607M of Khata No. 636.

4. It is also submitted that as the civil suits are already pending between the parties before the competent authority, but only with the intention to make pressure on the applicant, the F.I.R. was lodged on 05.01.2024 and the charge sheet was also submitted, merely on the basis of presumption that order dated 06.07.1982 was got forged by the applicant. It is vehemently submitted that the Consolidation Officer passed fresh order on 04.06.2025 considering all the controversies in compliance of the order dated

23.04.2024 passed by this Court in aforesaid Writ-B No. 3214 of 2018 and there is no evidence that any document was forged by the applicant. In such circumstances, no offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. is made out. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. Ra Jawaharaj & Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 581, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the indulgence of this Court 3 A482 No. 8727 of 2025 is necessary.

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that charge sheet has already been filed and all these defences were raised before the court below. However, he does not dispute the fact that the controversy related to the area of the plot in dispute was remanded back by writ Court in the Writ-B No. 3214 of 2018 to the Consolidation Officer, who passed final order on 04.06.2025, after hearing the parties.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, the record reveals that there is dispute related to the area of Gata No. 607. It is further evident that private respondent purchased the property from LDA, as 3 bigha land of the said plot was already acquired by the LDA and LDA was having right to sold out the land from its area of 3 bigha. However, in relation to the rest of the area of 2 bigha, the applicant purchased the said property from the legal heirs of the recorded tenure holder and the dispute regarding the area of land has already been decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 04.06.2025, in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2024 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 3214 of 2018. Order dated 23.04.2024 reads as under: "Order on C.M Application No. 124794 of 2018

1. Heard Shri Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shadab Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi assisted by Ms. Khushbu Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. An impleadment application has been preferred by Shri Genda Lal and Jagdish as they are affected by the order of this Court dated 13.02.2018 whereby this Court had directed to seal the records and kept in seal cover with the Senior Registrar, High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. On that date, the case of the applicants were also listed and due to this order, from the last six years, their matter could not be heard.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel has no objection to the prayer made for impleadment. 4 A482 No. 8727 of 2025

4. Thus, the impleadment application is allowed.

5. The applicants are impleaded as respondent nos. 8 and 9 to the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel amendment/incorporation in the writ petition during the course of the day. for applicants are permitted to make necessary Order on Petition

1. The similar controversy is involved in the aforesaid two petitions thus, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

2. The Writ Petition No. 3214 of 2018 has been filed with the following main prayers:- "That by a writ of certiorari, the order dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure No. 12) as wel as the order dated 23.12.2017 (Annexure 19) passed by the opposite party no. 1 and the order dated 06.07.1982 (Annexure No. 3) as well as order dated 14.02.1989 (Annexure 4) passed by the opposite party no. 2 may kindly be quashed. "

3. The Writ Petition No. 26598 of 2018 has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.12.2017 (Annexure No. 1 to this Writ petition). (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.06.2015 (Annexure No. 9 to the Writ Petition) (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite party no. 1 to consider the application of the petitioner for recall of the order dated 18.06.2015 and pass an order on merit after giving an opportunity to the petitioner." infructuous as the order dated 06.07.1982 passed by

4. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the present writ petition has become Consolidation Officer in favour of late Azoora Khatoon, who is now represented by respondent nos. 4 and 5 i.e. subsequent purchasers from the legal heirs of late Azoora Khatoon has been set aside by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal by its judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh. Once the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 06.07.1982 has consequential orders of implementation/reference of the order dated 06.07.1982 has also lost efficacy and the petition has become infructuous. in appeal, set aside

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that after the filing of the present writ petition, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in appeal set aside the order dated 06.07.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer, but the impugned orders dated 18.06.2015 and 23.012.2017 were passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which cannot be treated to have come to an end by the order passed by the Sub-ordinate authority in 5 A482 No. 8727 of 2025 appeal by its judgment dated 13.08.2018.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has very fairly admitted this fact that the order dated 14.02.1989 is an order passed by the Consolidation Officer under Rule 109(A) on the application of late Azoora Khatoon preferred in pursuance of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 06.07.1982 for the implementation of the same.

7. It is further submitted that after the order of the Consolidation Officer, Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed an order on 18.06.2015 by the order dated for compliance/implementation of granting approval 06.07.1982.

8. It is further submitted that against the said order, the petitioner being a subsequent purchaser of land from Nagar Nigam, has moved a recall application for recalling the order dated 18.06.2015 for making entry in the name of the legal heirs of late Azoora Khatoon in the revenue records which was rejected by order dated 23.12.2017 and at that time, the order dated 06.07.1982 was in existence. After the order of the Settlement Officer in appeal dated 13.08.2018 by which, order dated 06.08.1982 has been set aside. All the consequential orders are also liable to be quashed particularly the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. the higher authority of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that though the orders passed on 14.02.1989, 18.06.2015, 23.12.2017 are now treated to be no more in existence after the setting aside of the order dated 06.07.1982 by order/judgment dated 13.08.2018 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the appeal and the petitioner has an opportunity to present his case before the Consolidation Officer as it has been remanded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by its order dated 13.08.2018, but for clarity, the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation may specifically be quashed by this Court.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, after the passing of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the appeal setting aside the order dated 06.07.1982, it is to be emphasised and noticed that on setting aside of original order dated 06.07.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer, all the consequences that followed relating to implementation of order dated 06.07.1982 under Rule 109-A, which may have even though confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation would fall and would remain no more effective for any purposes. The apprehension of the parties that the orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in confirming the order for implementation of order dated 06.07.1982 and rejecting the recall application of the petitioner by impugned order dated 23.12.2017 is without any basis. The Consolidation Officer after remand of the matter while dealing the case on merits will not be influenced or prejudiced by order or observation by Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.06.2015 and 23.12.2017.

11. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the the present writ petition is allowed.

12. The newly impleaded respondent nos. 8 and 9 have also moved an application for modification of the order dated 13.02.2018 for release of their 6 A482 No. 8727 of 2025 case from sealed cover as directed by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2018 as their case is not related to the controversy involved in the present writ petition. The Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 13.02.2018 has passed an order for sealing of the record and keeping it before the Senior Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and thereafter no further direction has ever been issued by this Court. Once the present writ petition is being decided finally by this Court, the Senior Registrar is directed to return the records."

7. Relevant part of the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow in Case No. 05 of 2025 is as under : "ग्राम औरंगाबाद खालसा परगना िबजनौर तहसील सरोजनीनगर िजला लखनऊ के गाटा सं० 607 के सम्बन्ध में उपरोक्त िनष्कषोर्ं के आधार पर वाद िनणीर्त िकया जाता है। आधारवषर् के खाता सं० 87 में गाटा सं० 607 पूवर्वत 5 बीघा श्रीमती अजोरा खातून पत्नी शमसाद अली के खाते में अंिकत हो तथा जो०च०आ०पत्र-11 के खाता सं० 123 में 3 बीघा के स्थान पर रकबा 5 बीघा अंिकत हो और इसी अंकन के अनुरूप जो०च०आ०पत्र-23 भी दुरूस्त हो तथा जो०च०आ० पत्र-23 के खाता सं० 636 तालाब खाते में गाटा सं० 607िम रकबा 6-7-0 के स्थान रकबा 7-7-10 सन् 1359 फसली खतौनी के खाता सं० 51 व 201 के अनुरूप दजर् हो। अन्य आपित्तयां िनरस्त हो। मृतक खातेदारों एवं पक्षकारों के स्थान पर उनके िविधक वािरसान एवं प्रितस्थापी दजर् एवं प्रभािवत माने जायेगें।"

8. After examining the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the controversy related to the area has already been decided by the Consolidation Officer.

9. In view of above, the matter requires consideration

10. Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

11. List this case on 03.12.2025.

12. Until further orders of this Court, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed. November 3, 2025 VKS (Rajeev Singh,J.)