The High Court held there was no illegality in consolidation authorities refusing to stay proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petition was 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. - 81
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 834 of 2020
Petitioner :- Karan Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioners.
Through the impugned orders challenged in the present writ petition, the consolidation authorities have refused to stay the proceedings registered before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
The contention of the petitioners is that the proceedings had been stayed through order dated 5.12.2012 passed by this Court in Writ B no.61523 of 2012. Through the order dated 5.12.2012, the High Court had merely prohibited transfer of possession in pursuance to some previous order dated 8.11.2012 and did not stay the proceedings in any case.
There is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.6.2020 IB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the objection to stay of consolidation proceedings is sustainable when the previous order only prohibited transfer of possession.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karan Singh And 2 Others
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
