Allowed

Lakshmi Prasad v. Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2021WRIB/178/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Consolidation Officer to decide a pending land consolidation case under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within one year, alongside directions to ensure expedited proceedings and strict adherence to timelines.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the case within one year, provide hearing opportunities, and impose costs for delays.

Lakshmi Prasad Vs Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 178 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Lakshmi Prasad Respondent :- Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead "Gaon Sabha Village Lamora, Pargana and Tehsil-Kulpahad, District-Mahoba" as corespondent No.4 in the array of the parties to the writ petition during the course of the day.

¶6

Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.

¶7

The only prayer made by Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Consolidation Officer, Tehsil-Kulpahad, District-Mahoba may decide the case registered as Case No.237 (Siddhgopal Vs. Lakshmi Prasad) under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a stipulated period of time, pursuant to the remand made by the respondent No.1-Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Tehsil-Kulpahad, DistrictMahoba by order dated 28.12.2020.

¶8

Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner calls attention to order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Tehsil-Kulpahad, District-Mahoba on 24.01.2019 to contend that the matter has been

¶9

pending adjudication for the past many decades and the same may be decided expeditiously.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel contends that it appears from the record that the parties have been litigating before the consolidation authority for many decades. The respondents authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the case registered as Case No.237 (Siddhgopal Vs. Lakshmi Prasad) under Section 9- A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a reasonable time frame.

¶11

Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4-Gaon Sabha adopts the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶12

In light of the submissions made by the parties at the bar, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶13

The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2Consolidation Officer, Tehsil-Kulpahad, DistrictMahoba.

¶14

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

¶15

(1) The respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, TehsilKulpahad, District-Mahoba, shall decide the case registered as Case No.237 (Siddhgopal Vs. Lakshmi Prasad) under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh

¶16

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 pending before him, in pursuance of the order of remand made by the Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Tehsil-Kulpahad, District-Mahoba on 28.12.2020, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

(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, TehsilKulpahad, District-Mahoba.

¶18

(3) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the respondent No.2Consolidation Officer, Tehsil-Kulpahad, DistrictMahoba.

¶19

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

¶20

(5) The respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, TehsilKulpahad, District-Mahoba, 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, Tehsil-Kulpahad, District-Mahoba, shall impose costs

¶22

not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking such adjournment.

¶23

(7) If necessary, the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Tehsil-Kulpahad, District-Mahoba shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated time line of one year for deciding the case is strictly adhered to.

¶24

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.3.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Lakshmi Prasad v. Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Prasad v. Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Isahan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

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

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

Sushil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Ganga Sahay and 2 Others Vs Depuy Director of Consolidation and 14 Others

Ashok Kumar Tiwari Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another