Allowed

Ram Kunvari(Deceased) and 5 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2021WRIB/259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking a direction under Article 226 to decide pending proceedings under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within a stipulated period of one year to address inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceedings under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within one year.

Ram Kunvari(Deceased) and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 6… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 259 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Kunvari(Deceased) And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Rajendra Kumar Dubey

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 registered in the year 1996 as Case No.50/19-20 (Bankey Lal Vs. State) under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 are pending. The only prayer made by Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the aforesaid proceedings may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the proceedings within a reasonable period of time.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order-sheet.

¶9

The order-sheet discloses that there is no good reason for the inordinate delay for deciding the proceedings. The respondents No.3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and 3/4 have appeared in the proceedings.

¶10

No useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before

¶11

this Court.

¶12

The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2- Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Fatehgarh, District-Farrukhabad.

¶13

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 2-Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Fatehgarh, DistrictFarrukhabad, to execute the following directions:

¶14

I. The respondent no. 2-Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Fatehgarh, District-Farrukhabad, shall decide the proceedings registered as Case No.50/19-20 (Bankey Lal Vs. State) under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within a period of one year from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the party concerned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶15

II. The respondent no. 2-Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Fatehgarh, District-Farrukhabad, shall notice and hear all the necessary parties to the lis before any order is passed in the said proceedings.

¶16

III. All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent no. 2-Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Fatehgarh, DistrictFarrukhabad.

¶17

IV. In case the parties do not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent no. 2-Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Fatehgarh, DistrictFarrukhabad, or adopt dilatory tactics to hinder the proceedings, the respondent no. 2-Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Fatehgarh, DistrictFarrukhabad, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶18

V. If necessary the respondent no. 2-Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Fatehgarh, DistrictFarrukhabad may proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above time period of one year is strictly adhered to.

¶19

This order is being passed in absence of the respondents No.3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and 3/4. In case any fact is concealed by the petitioners or the respondents No.3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and 3/4 are irretrievably prejudiced or there is any legal impediment, it is open to the parties to file an application for recall of this order.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 9.2.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Ram Kunvari(Deceased) and 5 Others v. State of U P and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kunvari(Deceased) and 5 Others v. State of U P and 6 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

Jag Mohan Vs D.D.C. and Others

Pratibha Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Navneet Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kanhai and 2 Others Vs Consolidation Officer and Another

Ram Samujh and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Sukhram Vs State of U P and 2 Others