Partly allowed

Shrinath Yadav v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 7 Others

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2020WRIB/981/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed in part to quash an order allowing a substitution application filed in respect of non-existent or abated proceedings. The court modified the order to apply only to the pending objection regarding land in Village Tahbarpur.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 09.10.2019 allowing the substitution application was quashed in relation to Villages Puraachanak and Mahuwar and modified to apply only to Village Tahbarpur.

Shrinath Yadav Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 981 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Shrinath Yadav Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Chandra Naik

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri B. C. Naik, counsel for the contesting respondent nos. 3 to 8.

¶6

The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 12 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. It appears that these proceedings pertain to three objectors regarding land situated in three villages namely Tahbarpur, Mahuwar and Puraachanak. During pendency of these three objections which were consolidated, the objector Jagdish Rai died and an application was filed to bring on record his heirs. These applications were opposed on the ground that they were belated.

¶7

The Consolidation Officer on 09.09.2019 allowed the substitution application. Aggrieved by the same petitioner preferred a revision which is dismissed holding it to be directed against an interlocutory order.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the order of Consolidation Officer smacks of clear non-application of mind inasmuch as the application in the three consolidated cases has been allowed. This is a patently illegal inasmuch as no proceedings are pending before the Consolidation Officer as regards the land situated in Village Mahuwar because the objection filed by the petitioner had been allowed. The contesting respondent filed a restoration application which was rejected and order affirmed in revision. Against these aforesaid two orders writ petition no. 27607 of 2014 is pending consideration.

¶9

From the statement noted above, it is clear that nothing is pending before Consolidation Officer regarding land of village Mahuwar.Therefore, the substitution application that has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 09.10.2019 pertains to a non-existent case.

¶10

In so far as, the objection with regard to the land situated in Village Puraachanak concerned, it is admitted to the parties that

¶11

consolidation operations in this village have been cancelled by issuance of a notification no. 6 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

¶12

Once consolidation operations have been cancelled by issuance of a notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act, the Consolidation authorities cease to have jurisdiction and all pending proceedings stand abated automatically.

¶13

Under the circumstances and since the substitution order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 09.10.2019 pertains also to an objection regarding land situated in Village Puraachanak, the same is, in view of what has been noticed above, wholly without jurisdiction.

¶14

The only contention of counsel for the respondent is that since the writ petition regarding Puraachanak is already pending consideration, therefore, the order impugned withregard to land situated in that village is not liable to be interfered with.

¶15

Upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, I find substance in the contention of counsel for the petitioner. The order dated 09.10.2019, in so far as, it relates to the objections pertaining to land of Village Puraachanak and Mahuwar, the same is without jurisdiction and patently illegal. No case is pending before the Consolidations Courts regarding land of Village Mahuwar while consolidation operations in village Puraachanak stand cancelled.

¶16

Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in part and modify the order dated 09.10.2019 and clarify that this order shall apply only to the objection pending before Consolidation Officer which pertains to land situated at Village Tahbarpur. It shall not apply to the land or any objection pertaining to land situated in Village Puraachanak or Mahuwar.

¶17

No order as to costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.10.2020 AKT

Shrinath Yadav v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrinath Yadav v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jaiprakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Subedar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Vibharao Vs Ashok Kumar

Ram Karan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramsanwarey and 4 Others Vs Consolidation Officer and 2 Others