Allowed

Imran Ahmad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2021WRIB/1844/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that stayed a previous permission extension without assigning reasons. The court directed the authority to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing parties within one month and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.08.2021 was quashed. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh reasoned order within one month.

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

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1844 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Imran Ahmad

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Akhtar,Rajesh Maurya,Sufiya Bano

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents1& 2 and Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Akhtar, learned counsel representing caveator respondent-3.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 03.08.2021 passed by Respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in Revision No. 730 of 2021 (Abdul Aziz Vs. Imran Ahmad and others) under Section 48 (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. C.H. Act, 1953).

¶9

Record shows that petitioner filed an application under Section 5C(2) of U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 seeking permission to raise constructions over Survey Plot No. 3211, Area-0036 Hectare, situate in Village-Mangarawan, Raipur, ParganaNizamabad, Tehsil-Meh Nagar, District-Azamgarh. Aforesaid application filed by petitioner came to be registered as Case No.275 (Imran Vs, State) under Section 5C(2) OF U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. Respondent-2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh vide order dated 10.03.2021 allowed the aforesaid application filed by petitioner with conditions that proposed constructions shall be raised within a period of three months. It

¶10

was however provided that in Case any dispute is pending in respect of land over which constructions have been allowed to be raised, the order shall automatically came to an end.

¶11

Unfortunately, petitioner could not raise constructions over Survey Plot No. 3211 within the time period provided in order dated 10.03.2021. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application in Case No. 275 (Imran Vs. State) under Section 5C (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 seeking extension of time, which was allowed vide order dated 09.07.2021 passed by respondent-2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh. Accordingly two months further time was granted to petitioner to raise constructions.

¶12

Respondent-3 challenged order dated 09.07.2021 by means of Revision before Respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation in terms of Section 48 (3) of U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. Aforesaid revision filed by contesting respondent-3 came to be registered as Revision No. 730 of 2021 (Abdul Aziz Vs. Imran and others). Respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh on 03.08.021 passed an interim order, whereby effect and operation of order dated 09.07.2021 passed by respondent2, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh was stayed.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order dated 03.08.2021 passed by respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is then submitted that original permission to raise constructions over the aforesaid land by petitioner was accorded by respondent-2 ,Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Azamgarh vide order dated 10.03.2021. However, subsequently vide order dated 09.07.2021 only time was extended in favour of petitioner for raising constructions over Survey Plot No. 3211. It is thus urged that subsequent order dated 09.07.2021 is

¶14

only a consequential order against which no revision was maintainable.

¶15

In addition to have above, learned counsel for petitioner further submits that no reason has been assigned by respondent1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in staying the effect and operation of order dated 09.07.2021. He has placed reliance upon judgement of Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, 1990 SCC (4) 594 and on basis of aforesaid, learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order dated 03.08.2021 passed by respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh cannot be sustained in law and fact and therefore, same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶16

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1& 2 and Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Akhtar, learned counsel representing caveator respondent-3 have opposed present writ petition. However, Mr. Rahul Mishra could not dispute that the order dated 03.08.2021 passed by respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgar is devoid of reasons

¶17

Having heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1& 2, Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Akhtar, learned counsel representing caveator respondent-3 and upon perusal of material on record, this Court finds that impugned order dated 03.08.2021 passed by respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh (Copy of impugned order dated 03.08.2021 passed by respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh is contained as Annexure 8 to the writ petition) does not contain any reason. Same is therefore unsustainable in law and fact.

¶18

Consequently, same is liable to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed.

¶19

Matter is remanded to respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh with a direction that respondent-1 shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties on merits with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioner in pending Revision before respondent-1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh by means of a Notary Affidavit.

¶20

Writ petition is allowed.

¶21

Cost made easy.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.11.2021 YK

Imran Ahmad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Ahmad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komal Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary Department of Revenue and 3 Others

Samsher Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mithai Lal Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others

Geeta Devi Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Indrawat Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others