Disposed

Indira v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2021WRIB/233/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the Consolidation Officer failed to decide a restoration application filed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act within seven years. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the officer to decide the application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-2, Consolidation Officer, to decide the restoration application filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of filing certified copy of this order.

Indira Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 233 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Indira

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 and 2.

¶7

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of Mandamus commanding respondent-2, Consolidation Officer, Sikanderpur, Ballia to decide Case No.212 of 2013 (Jhagroo Vs. State and another) under Section 9A(2) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a time bound period fixed by this Court.

¶8

Record shows that an objection under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by respondent-3, Jhagroo which was registered as Case No.212 of 2013, (Jhagroo Vs. State and another). Aforesaid case came to be decide by Consolidation Officer, Sikanderpur, Ballia vide order dated 09.02.2013.

¶9

Feeling aggrieved by order dated 09.02.2013, petitioner filed restoration application on 27.08.2013.

¶10

Grievance of petitioner is that inspite of the fact that a period of seven years has rolled by from the date of filing of restoration application by petitioner, same has not been decided till date. Failure on part of respondent-2, Consolidation Officer, Sikanderpur, Ballia in not deciding the restoration application even after expiry of aforesaid period is causing irreparable loss and injury to petitioner.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶12

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent-2, Consolidation Officer, Sikanderpur, Ballia to decide restoration application filed by petitioner in Case No.212 of 2013, (Jhagroo Vs. State and another), under Section 9A(2) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 with all expedition and without granting any unnecessary

¶13

adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order which shall be filed by petitioner before respondent-2 by means of a notary affidavit.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.7.2021 Saif

Indira v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indira 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajeet Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amzad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Swati @ Gulnar Rayeen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Shakir @ Shakir Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Man Singh @ Man Singh Baghel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tanuj Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and Another