JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, District- Faizabad to decide the objection filed under Section 9-A (ii) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (‘Act’ in short). 2. I have heard Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A (ii) of the Act before Assistant Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, which was forwarded to Consolidation Officer for adjudication on 3.1.1996. In the meantime in the year 1999, order for ex parte hearing was passed. However, on 12.3.2003, time for filing written statement was granted, which was not filed on account of death of Ram Pratap. Fact remains that the matter was pending since the year 1996 without any decision thereon. 4. Copy of the order sheet has been filed, which shows that on 17.1.1996, notices were issued to the opposite parties. On 15.3.1999, case proceeded ex parte as opposite party absented despite notice. Thereafter, from 16.9.2004 till 20.2.2010, general dates were fixed and then case continued to be posted for one reason or another. 5. Consolidation Officer, Bikapur in his affidavit has stated that objection was dismissed on 2.5.2012 whereafter a restoration application was filed which was allowed on 22.5.2012. He has also stated that petitioner has also taken adjournments on number of occasions. What is most intriguing is the lawyers’ strike which has contributed to the maximum extent for this delay. In the year 2014, on one hundred and ninety five days, lawyers remained on strike and abstained from work. Added to it ninety days’ holidays, total working days come to seventy nine. Vacant Court of Consolidation Officer and the extra work assigned to these authorities has also been taken as a defence. From the above affidavit, it is apparent that reason for delay is definitely lawyers’ strike as well as vacant position of Consolidation Officer. Even if it be presumed that objection was decided in the year 2012, fact remains that it took sixteen years to get an objection decided. 6. Perturbed over the callous attitude shown by the Consolidation authorities in not deciding objection even after eighteen years, Consolidation Commissioner was directed to file response giving the pendency of cases before Consolidation authorities with an year-wise breakup. 6. Perturbed over the callous attitude shown by the Consolidation authorities in not deciding objection even after eighteen years, Consolidation Commissioner was directed to file response giving the pendency of cases before Consolidation authorities with an year-wise breakup. 7. Sri Suresh Chandra, Principal Secretary (Revenue) has filed his affidavit on 12.12.2014 from which it is apparent that 1,76,462 cases are pending before Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5200 cases before Consolidation Officer, 3060 cases before Settlement Officer, Consolidation and 1014 cases before Deputy Director of Consolidation are pending for over twenty years. It is also apparent from the affidavit that Consolidation operations are going on in seventy five districts of the State. 8. From annexure No. 1 of the affidavit, it is apparent that nine posts of deputy director of Consolidation, twenty posts of Settlement Officer Consolidation, seventy six posts of Consolidation Officer and one hundred eighty two posts of Assistant Consolidation Officer are lying vacant. 9. Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act was enacted with a view to consolidate the holding and decide all the disputes promptly that is why all other Courts were divested of their jurisdiction and matters pending before other Courts had to be abated under Section 5 of the Act. If a dispute could not be resolved by way of conciliation, matter was to be sent to the Consolidation Officer, who would decide the same under Section 9-A (ii) of the Act. Appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer was maintainable before Settlement Officer, Consolidation (S.O.C). Revision under Section 48 of the Act could be filed before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Purpose of the Act seems to be very laudable relieving villagers of the onerous litigation and ordeal of revenue Courts. After twenty years, fresh consolidation could also be started in the discretion of the State Government. If matters remained pending before the consolidation authorities for such a long period i.e. for over twenty years, one can easily visualize the plight of the litigant destroying very purpose of the enactment. 10. Consequently, Consolidation Commissioner was asked to come out with a comprehensive plan to deal with this pendency. Sri Suresh Singh Yadav, Additional Director (Technical), Consolidation has filed his affidavit with which he has annexed the comprehensive plan prepared after the approval of Consolidation Commissioner. 10. Consequently, Consolidation Commissioner was asked to come out with a comprehensive plan to deal with this pendency. Sri Suresh Singh Yadav, Additional Director (Technical), Consolidation has filed his affidavit with which he has annexed the comprehensive plan prepared after the approval of Consolidation Commissioner. In the plan, it is mentioned that for filling the post of Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation, a departmental promotion committee will hold its meeting within a week and post of Consolidation Officer will also be filled within a period of one month by way of promotion. Since this plan has been placed after getting approval from the Consolidation Commissioner, Court sees no reason to doubt the sincerity of the statement made in the affidavit. It is also stated that post required to be manned by P.C.S. Officers will be filled by way of promotion from department on account of their shortage. vide order dated 16.12.2014, this Court had expected that process of recruitment of Lekhpals be initiated within a month. 11. In this view of the matter, if posts are filled as mentioned in the affidavit, pendency of the cases before consolidation authorities would certainly come down. What is more striking is the plan prepared by department for disposal of the matters pending before consolidation Courts. According to the plan, Deputy Director of Consolidation would decide the matters pending as of now by December, 2015. 12. Settlement Officer, Consolidation would decide the appeals by October, 2015 while Consolidation Officer would decide the objections by July, 2015. Although, plan seems to be too optimistic but a good move is always welcome and if authorities work as per plan as is assured by the respondents, without entertaining an iota of doubt, litigation before the consolidation Courts would come to a satisfactory level. It has also been mentioned that consolidation Courts would continue to work despite resolutions passed by Bar Association and not more than three adjournments will be given. 13. It is also mentioned in para-6 of the plan that the Officers who exercise power much after the publication of the notification under Section 52 (I) of the Act would also be identified. Court is fully satisfied with the affidavit filed by Sri Suresh Singh Yadav and it is hoped that things would move according to the plan prepared by the department. Court is fully satisfied with the affidavit filed by Sri Suresh Singh Yadav and it is hoped that things would move according to the plan prepared by the department. In fact, Court will be failing if it does not put on record the appreciation of the move initiated by Sri Suresh Chandra, Principal Secretary Revenue/Consolidation Commissioner and Sri Suresh Singh Yadav, Additional Director. 14. In view of the discussions made above, writ petition is allowed. 15. Appointment on the posts of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officers Consolidation and Consolidation Officers will be made within a month. So far as appointment of Lekhpal is concerned, State Government is directed to initiate the process within three months. 16. Consolidation Commissioner is directed to ensure strict compliance of the comprehensive plan dated 18.12.2014 prepared for timely disposal of pending cases. 17. Consolidation Officer, Bikapur is directed to decide the objection within two months. ———————