Dismissed

Pashupati and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2021WRIB/1821/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition sought a direction under Article 226 to force the Second Respondent to decide a pending appeal regarding land consolidation within a fixed time. The court dismissed the petition because the petitioner failed to prove that the Respondent-4, who was a party to the appeal, had appeared.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner could not establish that the respondent-4 had appeared or that notice was served.

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

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1821 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Pashupati And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Majahar Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Majahar Ali, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing counsel representing respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Padraul, District-Kushinagar to decide Appeal No. 1237/1397 (Pashupati and others Vs. Jtashankar) under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963 filed by petitioners, within the time period fixed by this Court.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioners contends that against order dated 28.01.2017 passed by Consolidation Officer, Kasya, Kushinagar, petitioners preferred aforesaid appeal in the year 2019. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 2 years has rolled by from the date of filing of afore-mentioned appeal, same has not been decided till date. Learned counsel for petitioners then invited attention of Court to the order-sheet of afore-mentioned appeal, and on the basis thereof, he submits that delay in disposal of afore-mentioned Appeal cannot be attributed to petitioners. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for petitioners contends that interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-2 to decide above mentioned Appeal within the time period fixed by

¶9

this Court. Consequently, mandamus as prayed for by petitioner is liable to be allowed.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel submits that there is nothing on record to conclude that respondent-4, Jata Shankar has appeared in appeal or service of notice upon respondent-4 has been held to be sufficient. In the absence of above, direction as prayed for by petitioners cannot be issued.

¶11

When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same.

¶12

In view of above, no specific direction can be issued by this Court to respondent-2 Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Padraul, District-Kushinagar to decide Appeal No. 1237/1397 (Pashupati and others Vs. Jtashankar) under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963.

¶13

Accordingly, present writ petition fails and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶14

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.10.2021 YK

Pashupati and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pashupati and 3 Others 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

Shri Ram and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Varun Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Leena Rani Vs State of U P and 6 Others

Jahid Ali Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Priyanka Singh and 4 Others Vs Smt. Umapati and 19 Others

Afzal Ali Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others