JUDGMENT : (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) 1. Supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of the impugned order is taken on record. 2. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Gaon Sabha as respondent no.20 in the writ petition during course of the day and serve the copy of the writ petition upon Mr. Krishan Kant Mani, learned counsel for respondent-Gaon Sabha. 3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Krishna Kant Mani, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 4. Brief facts of the case are that title dispute under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred as U.P.C.H. Act was registered as case No. 1238 of 2022, Computerized case No. 20225409601031238 State Vs. Labh Singh. The aforementioned case was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.7.2024 altering the entry of the plot belonging to petitioner along with others. In pursuance of the order dated 3.7.2024, proceeding under Rule 109 (A) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1954 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules has been initiated and Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 30.8.2024 for recording the plot in question in pursuance of the order dated 3.7.2024 under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 26.7.2024 and 14.9.2017 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur-respondent no.1, dated 20.6.2024, 24.6.2024 and 3.7.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer, Tehsil-Nakud, District Saharanpur-respondent no.2. (ii) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) To award the costs of the petition to the petitioner (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari partly quashing the order dated 30.8.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer, Tehsil Nakud, District Saharanpur-respondent no.2." 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that title objection was registered before the Consolidation Officer and petitioner was appearing in the proceeding. He further submitted that without affording opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law, the title objection has been decided by Consolidation Officer under the impugned order dated 3.7.2024. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that title objection was registered before the Consolidation Officer and petitioner was appearing in the proceeding. He further submitted that without affording opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law, the title objection has been decided by Consolidation Officer under the impugned order dated 3.7.2024. He submitted that on 20.6.2024, the application was filed on behalf of Labh Singh and Others that some other date be fixed in the matter as witness of the applicant is not feeling well, as such, they could not adduce evidence in the proceeding. He submitted that application dated 20.6.2024 filed by Labh Singh and Others was rejected and case was fixed for 28.6.2024. He submitted that impugned order has been passed by Consolidation Officer on 3.7.2024 without giving opportunity to lead evidence in accordance with law which is fully demonstrated from the application dated 20.6.2024 and the order passed on the application dated 20.6.2024. He further submitted that revision filed against the orders dated 20.6.2024/ 24.6.2024 has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that in view of the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Rules, the opportunity to lead evidence is to be properly afforded to the tenure holders, as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that entry of the plot in question cannot be altered in the subsequent consolidation operation as in the earlier consolidation operation, the entry of the plot in question was in favour of petitioner's predecessor. He submitted that the authorities have initiated the proceeding under Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules in arbitrary manner and without notice/ opportunity of hearing to petitioner, an order dated 30.8.2024 has been passed correcting the entry of the plot in question on the basis of ex-parte order of Consolidation Officer dated 3.7.2024. He submitted that order dated 30.8.2024 has been passed by Consolidation Officer in violation of principles of natural justice, as such, alternative remedy against the order of Consolidation Officer will not be bar for petitioner to challenge the same before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that writ petition against the order of Consolidation Officer is not maintainable. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that writ petition against the order of Consolidation Officer is not maintainable. He further submitted that against the order passed by Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, appeal will lie under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act and against the order passed under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules, appeal will lie under Rule 109-A (3) of U.P.C.H. Rules. He submitted that matter was remanded before the Consolidation Officer by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the year 2017, as such, Consolidation Officer has rightly decided the controversy on 3.7.2024 after adopting the due procedure of law. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that Consolidation Officer has passed the order under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on 3.7.2024 altering the entry of plot in question and in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules, the order dated 30.8.2024 has been passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Rule 26 of U.P.C.H. Rules and Rule 109-A of the U.P.C.H. Rules will be relevant which are as under:- "Rule 26 of the U.P.C.H. Rules -(1) The cases received from the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be entered in the Misilband register in C.H. Form 6 in the office of the Consolidation Officer. (2) On the date fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25-A, or on any subsequent date fixed for the purpose, the Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary, and decide the objections. (3) The notice, which it may become necessary for the Consolidation Officer to issue to any person in connection with the disposal of a dispute by him, shall be in C.H. Form 6-A. (4) Where all the tenure-holders of a joint holdings oppose partition and the Consolidation Officer is satisfied that the opposition of each co-tenure-holder is genuine, he shall not proceed with the partition, unless for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, he considers it necessary so to do in the interest of better consolidation. (5) For deciding dispute relating to the determination of exchange ratio of a plot or the valuation of a tree, well or other improvement existing on a plot, the Consolidation Officer shall make a local inspection of the plot concerned, prepare an inspection memo and place it on the connected file.]" "109A of U.P.C.H. Rules-. Section 52(2). -(1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities, authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the subdivision, the Tahsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar, the Supervisor kanungo, and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidator and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid. (2) If for the purpose of giving effect to any order referred to in sub-rule (1) it becomes necessary to reallocate affected chaks, necessary orders may be passed by the28 Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. (3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within 15 days of the order passed under sub-rule (2), file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, as the case may be, who shall decide the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, which shall be final. (4) In case delivery of possession becomes necessary as a result of orders passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, the provisions of Rules 55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed.]" 10. The perusal of the provisions as quoted above fully demonstrate that opportunity to lead evidence as well as notice is mandatory for deciding the title dispute under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act as well as in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules. The perusal of the provisions as quoted above fully demonstrate that opportunity to lead evidence as well as notice is mandatory for deciding the title dispute under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act as well as in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules. The record demonstrate that parties have not afforded proper opportunity to lead evidence in the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act as well as opportunity has not been afforded in the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules. 11. So far as alternative remedy against the impugned order is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement reported in 2009 (1) AWC 437 (SC) Committee of Management and another Vs. Vice-Chancellor and Others has held that if the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the alternative remedy will not be bar to challenge the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned revisional order dated 26.7.2024 passed by respondent no.1, orders dated 3.7.2024, 24.6.2024, 20.6.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in case No. 1238 of 2022 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. The order dated 30.8.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules are also liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. Writ petition stands allowed in part and matter is remitted back before Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur to register the case No. 1238 of 2022 on its original number and proceed with the matter from the stage where the application dated 20.6.2024 was filed by the petitioner along with others for affording them opportunity to lead evidence in the matter. Consolidation Officer shall afford proper opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in pursuance of the application dated 20.6.2024 and decide the aforementioned title proceeding in accordance with law within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The proceeding under Rule 109A of U.P.C.H. Rules shall be initiated after the conclusion of the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in accordance with law.