Disposed

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2021WRIB/1661/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation of a consolidation notification challenging inaction by the Consolidation Commissioner. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Commissioner to decide the pending application with expedition after hearing parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent-2 to decide the pending application with hearing opportunities within 3 months without unnecessary adjournments.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1661 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ranjeet Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr.Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 6 and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel representing respondent-7, Gaon Sabha.

¶6

Ranjeet, the writ petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow to take appropriate decision on application/representation dated 06.02.2017 filed by petitioner including other Villagers (Samast Gramwasi) regarding cancellation of Notification dated 09.04.2016 published under Section 4-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶7

Record shows that Village- Chandipatti, Pargarna-Sikandra, Tehsil- Phoolpur, District- Prayagraj was brought under consolidation operations by means of gazette notification dated 09.04.2016 published under Section 4-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Petitioner alleges that he as well as other tenure holders of the village do not want fresh consolidation operations in the village. Accordingly, application/representation dated 03.02.2017 was submitted before respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow requesting him to cancel the notification dated 09.04.2016 published under Section 4A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by exercising his powers under Section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953

¶8

read with Rule 17(b) of U.P. Consolidation Rules, 1954.

¶9

Grievance of petitioner is that in spite of the fact that a period of more than three years and nine months has rolled by from the date of filing of application/representation dated 03.02.2017 no decision has been taken by respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow on the aforesaid representation filed by petitioner and other villagers.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel contends that grievance of petitioner as prayed for in present writ petition has to be addressed by respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow by himself.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping this writ petition pending.

¶12

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of finally by directing respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow to decide application/representation dated 03.02.2017 submitted by petitioner alongwith other villagers, with all expedition, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioner before him by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.11.2021 YK

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Dayaram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishnaraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Kiran Devi Vs Tehsildar and Another

Darsoo Alias Darsoo Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Raj Vs Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Smt. Malti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. through Collector Jaunpur and 5 Others