Dismissed

Brijesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2020WRIB/1141/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected a writ seeking compelling consolidation authorities to comply with an order by the Consolidation Commissioner that allowed deductions exceeding the statutory 5% limit, holding the direction illegal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as misconceived. The court directed the Standing Counsel to ensure the order is supplied to the relevant authorities.

Brijesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1141 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

¶7

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent no.3-District Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur to comply with the directions issued by the Respondent No.2-Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow vide order dated 10.08.2020 with regard to redressing the grievance of the tenure hoders of the village including the petitioner before proceeding for consolidation operation."

¶8

It is stated that the petitioner and 51 other tenure holders made a representation to the Consolidation Commissioner, whereupon an order was passed by him directing that consolidation operations in Village Devapur Dugduiya, Post Pali, Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur be conducted after making minimum deduction from the holdings of tenure holders for public purpose. It is submitted that this direction is not being complied with by the consolidation authorities.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the direction issued by the Consolidation Commissioner on 10.08.2020 is patently illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, itself, which permits deduction up to 5% from the holding of each tenure holder for public purpose during consolidation operations. In case, there is any breach of this statutory provision, every tenure holder has a remedy by filing an objection followed by an appeal and revision.

¶10

Under the circumstances, the Consolidation Commissioner, should have refrained from issuing any direction, especially of the nature, which he had issued on 10.08.2020.

¶11

In any case, the direction does not specify as to what is the minimum permissible deduction. Minimum therefore, can also be interpreted to zero or that no deduction be made, which would again run contrary to the statutory provision.

¶12

Under the circumstances, there is no justification for issuing the direction prayed for by the petitioner, as it would amount to directing compliance of an order which is, as observed above, illegal.

¶13

The writ petition under the circumstances, is dismissed as misconceived.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is supplied to the District Deputy Director of Consolation, The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur as also the Subordinate Consolidation Authorities who are looking after consolidation operations in Village Devapur Dugduiya, Post Pali, Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur.

¶15

After the above direction has been complied with, an affidavit be filed by learned Standing Counsel on record, stating on oath, its compliance and for this purpose alone this petition shall be treated as pending.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.10.2020 Mayank

Brijesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Govind Singh Vs Smt. Upma

Umair Khan Vs National Institute of Open Schooling and 2 Others

Shivam Pawar and 2 Others Vs the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Saharanpur and 2 Others

Uma Shankar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Agrawal Bricks Kiln Industry Vs Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) and Another

Naim Hasan Vs Assistant Consolidation Officer and 4 Others