Dismissed

Indradev v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2019WRIB/2995/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a revision order that partly allowed a revision but remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer. While accepting the plea that the petition would not be maintainable at this stage, the court directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the case expeditiously within one year.

What did the court decide?

The present writ petition is dismissed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to decide Case No.12 under Section 12 of the Act within one year.

Indradev Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2995 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Indradev

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Singh,Narendra Singh Chahar,Rajendra Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with prayer to quash the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautambudh Nagar in Revision No.104/95/75 of 2016-17 (Smt. Chandrawati Versus Niranjan and others) under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1953") Mauza Village Bhunna Thaga, Pargana and Tehsil Jewar District Gautambudh Nagar

¶7

It appears from perusal of the record that against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 24.11.1967, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner in the year 2013.The said appeal was decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Gautambudh Nagar vide its judgement and order dated 27.6.2016. By the aforesaid order, order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 24.11.1967 was set aside and the matter was remanded back before the Consolidation Officer to hear the same on merits. Against the order dated 27.6.2016, a revision was preferred by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautambudh Nagar. The said revision was partly allowed vide order dated 20.11.2019 but the order to the extent that the matter was remanded before the Court of Consolidation Officer was remain intact. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the respondent No.1, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶8

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for private respondents that in view of the settled proposition of law that against the order of remand, writ petition is not maintainable. it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that by order impugned, the matter was rightly remanded back in the court below. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the case of Ram Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow reported in 2017 (134) RD 25, it has already been held by this Court that remand order is a interlocutory order which does not terminate the proceedings. It is open to the aggrieved parties to challenge the order of remand after final judgement made on remand. In the case of Dularey and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported in 2005 (99) RD 174, it has been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that if the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the consolidation officer for fresh consideration, there was absolutely no justification either on the fact or law for the revisional court to interfere in the order of the appellate authority. It appears from the record that no legal injuries was caused to the petitioner by the order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/respondent No.1.

¶9

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

¶10

From perusal of record, it is clear that the findings were duly recorded by the respondent No.1 in its order dated 20.11.2019 by partly allowing the revision and the order to the extent that the matter was remanded before the Court of Consolidation Officer was remain intact, which is impugned in this writ petition.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gautambudh Nagar is perfect and valid and does not call for any interference by this Court specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and dismissed.

¶12

At this point of time, counsel for the parties are agreed that although three months time was granted by the respondent No.1 to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter which is short for deciding the appeal and as such it is prayed that a reasonable time period be framed for the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter.

¶13

Considering the prayer made at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the Consolidation Officer Gautambudh Nagar is directed to consider and decide the Case No.12 under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Smt. Anardei Vs. Karan Singh ) in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of one year 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 :- 11.12.2019 saqlain

Indradev v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indradev v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Shankar Verma Vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 8 Others

Ram Prakash Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ojasvi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Smt. Hasirun Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Brahm Singh and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others