Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2021WRIB/175/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition holding that an order rejecting a mutually agreed chak proposal was arbitrary and illegal due to lack of reasons. The impugned order was set aside and matter remanded with a three-month deadline.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.12.2020 set aside; matter remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation for processing within three months.

Ajay Kumar Vs Deputy Director of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 175 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Ranjan Tripathi,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,Dharmendra Kumar Mishra,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Gram Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 and has filed a counter affidavit.

¶8

The counter affidavit is taken in the record.

¶9

The impugned order dated 21.12.2020 records that the two contesting parties are in agreement that a L shape chak be carved out and a chak marg be created therein. This would be of convenience to both the parties. However, after recording the consent between the parties, the impugned order rejects the revision on the sole footing that the request of the parties is belated and is not consistent with law. No reasons have been disclosed which warrant rejection of the consent proposal made by both the contesting parties. Before this Court as well in the counter affidavit the respondent No. 2 has asserted his consent to the proposal made by the petitioner before the revising court.

¶10

The preceding narrative establishes that the impugned order neglects to consider the convenience as well as consent of both

¶11

the parties. Further nothing is borne out from the impugned order to show that the agreement between the two parties is detrimental to third parties or against law in any manner. A small delay cannot become the basis of denying substantive justice.

¶12

In the wake of preceding discussion, this Court finds that the order dated 21.12.2020 is arbitrary and illegal.

¶13

The order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶14

The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to process the claim of the parties in conformity with the observations made in this judgment and as per law.

¶15

The exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶16

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.3.2021 Nadeem Ahmad

Ajay Kumar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 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

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Others

Lajja Ram Vs the D.D.C. and 2 Ors.

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mungiya and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Purvanchal Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6 Others

Garib Das and 57 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others