The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Settlement Officer's order that allowed an amendment application by a respondent to correct clerical errors (incorrect dates and case numbers) in a memo of appeal.
The writ petition is dismissed.
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. - 2891 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ramswaroop Respondent :- Bandobast Adhikari Chakbandi And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent appearing on behalf of respondent no.3.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur State/respondent no.1.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel as well as Diwakar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 that the order impugned is an interlocutory in nature. The amendment application filed by the respondent no.2 was rightly allowed by the respondent no.1.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that against the order dated 31.7.1989, passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 14 an appeal was preferred by the State of U.P. through Collector before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Fatehpur. Subsequently, from the perusal of the appeal, it appears that in the memo of appeal by way of some mistake in place of order dated 31.7.1989, it is typed out as dated 13.7.1989. Apart from the same case no. 19 has been stated in the memo of appeal, in place of case no.
It is clear from the record that while filing the appeal by the State Govt., certain clerical error was crept in the same. In order to correct the same, an application for amendment was filed. It is further appeared that the respondent no.1 rightly allowed the amendment application filed by the respondent no.2.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the respondent no.1 is a perfect and valid order and does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019 Chandan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order passed by the Settlement Officer allowing an amendment application to correct clerical errors in a previous appeal is an interlocutory order requiring no interference under Article 2
Ramswaroop
Bandobast Adhikari Chakbandi
4 Others
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
