Allowed

Isahan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2021WRIB/162/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad issued a writ of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Kushinagar to decide a restoration application under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within three months, ensuring a reasonable hearing to parties and penalizing unjustified delays.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued directing the Consolidation Officer, Kushinagar to decide the restoration application within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Isahan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 162 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Isahan

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Prakash Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2-State.

¶7

The petitioner has sought for the following relief in the instant writ petition:

¶8

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2, Consolidation Officer, Kushinagar to decide the restoration application as case no.5366 under Section 9A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, regarding village-Jarar, Tappa-Basti Chirgoda, Tehsil-Padrauna, District-Kushinagar dated 30.05.2011, as possible as early within a stipulated period."

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the basis of instructions submits that the restoration application dated 30.05.2011 in Case No.5366 (Ehsaan Vs. Vipat) under Section 9A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of three months.

¶10

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the instructions received from the respondent-authority and submission made by learned Standing Counsel for

¶11

the respondents-State.

¶12

The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2Consolidation Officer, District-Kushinagar.

¶13

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, District-Kushinagar to execute the following directions:

¶14

(1) The respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, District-Kushinagar, shall decide the restoration application dated 30.05.2011 in Case No.5366 (Ehsaan Vs. Vipat) under Section 9A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

¶15

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

(2) All parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed by the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, DistrictKushinagar.

¶17

(3) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the respondent No.2-

¶18

Consolidation Officer, District-Kushinagar to ensure that the same are concluded within a period of three months.

¶19

(4) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, District-Kushinagar, or adopts dilatory tactics, the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, DistrictKushinagar, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶20

(5) The respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, District-Kushinagar, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶21

(6) In case any adjournment is granted in the interest of justice, the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, District-Kushinagar, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking such adjournment.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.3.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Isahan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Isahan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 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

Punnu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Asare and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 7 Others

Mohd. Saeed Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 34 Others

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sushma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Banwari Lal and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others