Allowed

Imtiyaz Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2021WRIB/273/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pragraj, to decide a stay application accompanying a revision within one month, ensuring all parties are heard and no unnecessary adjournments are granted with cost imposition.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide a stay application within one month and follow specific procedural safeguards.

Imtiyaz Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 273 of 2021 Petitioner :- Imtiyaz Ahmad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶5

Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have taken the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation in revision, registered as Revision No. 603 (Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. Rashid Iqbal and others) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The memo of revision was accompanied by a stay application. The stay application has not been decided till date.

¶6

The only prayer made by Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for interim relief filed in support of memo of revision may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the grant of interim order is a matter of fact and law which can be determined in the first instance by the competent court. He, however, fairly submits that the revisional court is under an obligation of law to decide the application for interim relief within a reasonable period of time.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the application for interim relief is not decided within a reasonable period of time, the cause of

¶9

action may be extinguished and the revision will be rendered illusory. Hence it is imperative that the revisional court should decide the application for interim relief accompanying the memo of revision within a reasonable time frame.

¶10

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.

¶11

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj.

¶12

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj, to execute the following directions:

¶13

I. The respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj, shall decide the application for interim relief accompanying the revision, registered as Revision No. 603 (Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. Rashid Iqbal and others) within a period of one month 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.

¶14

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

¶15

declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

II. The respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj, shall ensure that the all parties to the lis are heard before any order is passed on the said application.

¶17

III. All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj.

¶18

IV. In case the parties do not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj, or adopt dilatory tactics, the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶19

V. The respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶20

VI. In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj, shall impose costs not below Rs. 5,000/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶21

VII. If necessary, the respondent no.2-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Prayagraj, may proceed with the hearing on a day to day basis to ensure that the above time period of one month is strictly adhered to.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 18.2.2021 Dhananjai

Imtiyaz Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiyaz Ahmad and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salma and 6 Others Vs Prescribed Authority/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and 2 Others

Om Kant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Govind Yadav Vs Consolidation Officer and 6 Others

Nand Lal Yadav Vs Additional Commissioner of Chakbandi and 2 Others

Raj Bahadur and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Sunil and 20 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others