Disposed

Firoj Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019WRIB/2959/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of a pending revision application under the Consolidation Holdings Act. Court disposed of petition at admission stage directing respondent to decide within six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 directed to decide the pending revision within six months giving opportunity to parties without adjournments.

Firoj Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2959 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Firoj Akhtar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K.Ojha,Mohammad Daud Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶6

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to the respondent Nos.4 to 8.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred with the following prayers:-

¶8

"[a] Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.2 Deputy Director of Consolidation Prayagraj to decide the revision No.881/674/526 of 2017 (Firoj Akhtar and others Vs. Mohammad Rashid and others) under Section 48(1) of the Consolidation Holdings Act, within stipulated time expeditiously as soon as possible or by the Hon'ble Court in a set time.

¶9

[ii Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶10

[iii] award the cost of this writ petition in of the petitioners." It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter is pending since 2017 but till date no decision has been final taken and prays for expeditious disposal.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by petitioner.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties present. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶13

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/ Deputy Director of Consolidation Prayagraj to consider and decide the aforesaid revision 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.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.12.2019 saqlain

Firoj Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoj Akhtar v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge Court NO.4 District Mau and 3 Others

Ramswaroop Vs Bandobast Adhikari Chakbandi and 4 Others

Ummed Ali Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Rameshwar Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Harilal Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation Azamgarh and 2 Others

Vijay Varshney Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others