WRIB/1718/2026 of ROOPRANI Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 1718 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.2.2026 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Kannauj in revision no. 0442/225 (Harish Chandra and others Vs. Rooprani)." 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that title revision filed by private respondent has been entertained and interim protection has been granted without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. He submitted that caveat was filed on behalf of petitioner before Deputy Director of Consolidation but without affording opportunity of hearing, the interim protection has been granted which is illegal. He submitted that interim protection granted in revision should be recalled and interim protection matter should be heard afresh by Deputy Director of Consolidation after affording opportunity to petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted that recall application filed by petitioner has been decided by Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Praveen Kumar Chaubey, Satyendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manish Kumar Singh, Saurabh Kumar Tiwari Rooprani .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) passing detailed order, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order. He submitted that by the interim order granted in revision, petitioner who is opposite party in revision, has been restrained from creating third party interest in respect to the plot in question which requires no interference by this Court. He placed the finding recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the recall application against the order granting interim protection in the revision filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that title revision filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 is pending before respondent no.2, Deputy Director of Consolidation and interim protection has been granted during pendency of revision. 7. It is material to mention that recall application filed on behalf of petitioner against the interim protection granted in revision has been decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18.2.2026 rejecting the recall application and maintaining the order dated 25.7.2025 granting interim protection during pendency of revision. 8. The perusal of the order dated 18.2.2026 demonstrate that the revision has been entertained and interim protection has been granted in proper manner restraining the opposite party from creating third party interest in respect to the plot in question which requires no interference by this Court. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2, Deputy Director of Consolidation District Kannauj to decide the aforementioned revision after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. May 6, 2026/Vandana Y. WRIB No. 1718 of 2026 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad