- (1.) R. R. Yadav, J. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and perused the averments made in the writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has deleted the name of Bhagwan Devi from the array of respondent No. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 26-8-1982 before the Consolidation Officer, Iglas, District Aligarh i. e. , respondent No. 3 which is pending consideration since then. The aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for petitioner, is supported from the question answer obtained from the office of the respondent No. 3, a copy whereof is filed an Annexure- 2 to the writ petition. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is running from pillar to post to get his objection decided expeditiously but his attempt has failed which necessitated to file the present petition. Learned Standing Counsel could not be able to explain as to why objection filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3 on 26-8-1982 could not be decided up till date. In my considered opinion, the act of the respondent No. 3 in not deciding objection filed by the petitioner on 26-8-1982 under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is demurrable and it is a fit case in which a writ of mandamus is to be issued directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the objection of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(3.) AS a result of aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed with a direction to Consolidation Officer, Iglas, District Aligarh i. e. , respondent No. 3 to decide the objection of the petitioner filed on 26-8-1982 under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed. .;