In a writ petition, the Court directed the Consolidation Officer to consider and decide a restoration application within six months, despite its time-barred status, without expressing an opinion on merits.
Direction to respondent No.2 to decide Restoration Application No.1718 within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2636 of 2019
Petitioner :- Gayn Chandra Yadav Respondent :- The Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the prayer made in the writ petition during the course of the day.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to allow this application and issue a mandamus directing the respondent No.2/Consolidation Officer, Mohammadabad, Mau to decide the restoration Application No.1718 under Section 9(A)(2)) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Satya Prakash & Others Vs. State) within stipulated period."
It appears from perusal of the record that a restoration application was filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2/Consolidation Officer, Mohammadabad, Gohna, District Mau in the year 2014. It further appears from perusal of the record that restoration application filed by the petitioner was also time barred. It is contended that in spite of the fact that consideration time has already been lapsed, till date no decision has been taken on the same.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the Restoration Application No.1718 in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 saqlain
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Consolidation Officer should decide the time-barred restoration application expeditiously.
Whether a direction can be issued to dispose of the petition without considering merits.
Whether a time limit can be fixed for the decision of the restoration application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gayn Chandra Yadav
The Deputy Director Of Consolidation
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
