Allowed

Bhawani v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018SPLA/578/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appellant disputed the dismissal of a writ petition due to non-exhaustion of a statutory remedy under Rule 45(3). The Special appellate court set aside the impugned order and directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to act on an application filed under Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.05.2018 was set aside with a direction to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Hasanpur, District Amroha, to take appropriate steps under Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 19

Bhawani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 578 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Bhawani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is before us to examine the correctness of the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ - B No. 3762 of 2018 (Bhawani Vs. State of U.P. and others).

¶6

Learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ on the count that the petitioner rushed to this Court without any recourse of the provisions of Rule 45(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954.

¶7

In appeal, only argument advanced is that the appellant-petitioner submitted an application as per section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P.C.H. Act, 1953') to the Consolidation Officer, who in turn required to proceed initiate the process to deliver possession of the land in question to the appellant-petitioner.

¶8

In brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner preferred revision petition bearing Revision No. 273/518 (Bhawani Vs. Hariom and others) before the authority competent. The revision petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner came to be accepted under an order dated 25.11.2013. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid, a petition for writ was preferred by one Gopali @ Gopal bearing Writ - B No. 69680 of 2013, that came to be dismissed in default. An application seeking restoration of the writ petition was subsequently withdrawn and as such the order passed by the consolidation authorities on 25.11.2013 has attained finality.

¶9

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that he has already submitted a application as per section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 and now remaining steps are required to be taken by the competent consolidation officer as per section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953.

¶10

Having considered all facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal by setting aside the judgment impugned dated 07.05.2018 with direction to respondent no.4-Assistant Consolidation Officer, Hasanpur, District Amroha to take appropriate steps in accordance with law on the application preferred by the petitioner under section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. If the appellant-petitioner has not yet moved any such application, he is at liberty to move the same within a period of two months from today. In case, such an application is moved, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶11

Special appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.7.2018 Prajapati

Bhawani v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhawani v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. and Others Vs Phool Singh Pal

Sanjay Jaiswal Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Nanauta Saharanpur Vs Moti Ram and 7 Others

M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium (P) Ltd. Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority and 2 Others

M/S Shiv and Company, Vs State of U P and 3 Others