Allowed

Ramanageena Chauhan v. Deputy Director Consolidation and 5 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2021WRIB/185/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide a revision petition pending since 1989 within six months. The order mandates effective hearing, prohibits unnecessary adjournments, and imposes costs for delays.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to decide the pending revision within six months along with specific procedural directions.

Ramanageena Chauhan Vs Deputy Director… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 185 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ramanageena Chauhan

¶2

Respondent :- Deputy Director Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navaneet Kumar Shukla,Ravindra Kumar Chauhan

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Praval Tripathi,Shashank Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Shashank Shukla, learned counsel and Shri Praval Tripathi, learned counsel have entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.

¶6

The service report indicates that the respondent no. 2 has been served. None has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

¶7

The petitioner made the following prayer in this writ petition:

¶8

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Deputy Director Consolidation, Kushinagar to decide the Revision No. 219/252/1998/1997-1998 (New No. 401, 402, 403 of 2020) (Computerized Case No. D198905440000001) titled Sukat and others Vs. Ramdhari and others U/s 48, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on merits in accordance with law and procedure within the time stipulated by the Hon'ble Court preferably within three months."

¶9

Shri Navaneet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revision is pending since the year 1989. He calls attention to the ordersheet of the court below to submit that the revision is being adjourned and a final decision is being inordinately delayed for no good reason.

¶10

Shri Shashank Shukla and Shri Praval Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid prayer.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that the revision is pending since the year 1989. However, he in his usual fairness submits that the respondent authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the revision within a reasonable period of time.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the ordersheet.

¶13

Perusal of the ordersheet corroborates the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. No effective hearing has taken place for more than 30 years in the court below.

¶14

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶15

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar.

¶16

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar, to execute the following directions:

¶17

(1) The respondent no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar, shall decide the Revision No. 219/252/1998/1997-1998 (New No. 401, 402, 403 of 2020) (Computerized Case No. D198905440000001) Sukat and others Vs. Ramdhari and others, U/s 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

(2) All parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed.

¶19

(3) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceeding before the respondent no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar.

¶20

(4) In case the parties do not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar, or adopt dilatory tactics, the respondent no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar, shall record a findings to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶21

(5) The respondent no. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶22

(6) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the respondent no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar, shall impose costs not below Rs. 500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶23

(7) If necessary the respondent no. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar, may proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above time period of six months is strictly adhered to.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 19.3.2021 Dhananjai

Ramanageena Chauhan v. Deputy Director Consolidation and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanageena Chauhan v. Deputy Director Consolidation and 5 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

Lakshmi Prasad Vs Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 2 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

Vijayveer Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha and 10 Others

Pannalal and Another Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Smt. Tara and Others Vs D.D.C. Saharanpur and Others