Disposed

Amit Kumar and Another v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2021WRIB/331/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer to decide pending restoration proceedings under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within six months due to inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the Restoration Application under Section 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within six months.

Amit Kumar and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 331 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Amit Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamala Shanker Singh,Nar Singh Narayan Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nar Singh Narayan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶6

The petitioners have sought for the following reliefs in the instant writ petition:

¶7

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2/Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti to decide the Restoration Application dated 22.08.2019 filed by the A.D.G.C. (Revenue) along with objection dated 09.10.2019 filed by the petitioners in Suit No.78 of 2018 (Amit Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court preferably on the next date fixed, after giving opportunity of hearing to both side in accordance with law."

¶8

Sri Nar Singh Narayan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no good cause for inordinate delay in deciding the proceedings registered as Restoration Application dated 22.08.2019 filed by the A.D.G.C. (Revenue) along with objection dated 09.10.2019 filed by the petitioners in Suit No.78 of

¶9

2018 (Amit Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He calls attention to the order-sheet.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondents authorities are an under obligation of law to decide the proceedings registered as Restoration Application dated 22.08.2019 filed by the A.D.G.C. (Revenue) along with objection dated 09.10.2019 filed by the petitioners in Suit No.78 of 2018 (Amit Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a reasonable period of time.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The order-sheet as appended to the writ petition discloses that there is no good cause for inordinate delay to conclude the proceedings registered as Restoration Application dated 22.08.2019 filed by the A.D.G.C. (Revenue) along with objection dated 09.10.2019 filed by the petitioners in Suit No.78 of 2018 (Amit Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶13

No useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶14

In light of the aforesaid submissions, the matter is remitted to respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer,

¶15

Sonupur, District-Basti.

¶16

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti, to execute the following directions:

¶17

The respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti to decide the proceedings registered as Restoration Application dated 22.08.2019 filed by the A.D.G.C. (Revenue) along with objection dated 09.10.2019 filed by the petitioners in Suit No.78 of 2018 (Amit Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a period of six months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the website of High Court, Allahabad.

¶18

The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioner (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The 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.

¶19

(2) All necessary parties to the lis including the State and the Gaon Sabha shall be given an opportunity of

¶20

hearing before the final order is passed.

¶21

(3) All necessary parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti.

¶22

(4) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti or adopts dilatory tactics, the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶23

(5) The respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶24

(6) In case any adjournment is granted in the interest of justice, the learned respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti shall impose costs not below Rs.5,000/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking such adjournment.

¶25

(7) If necessary, the respondent No.2-Consolidation Officer, Sonupur, District-Basti, shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated timeline of six months for deciding the proceedings is strictly adhered to.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 22.2.2021

¶28

Ashish Tripathi

Amit Kumar and Another v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar and Another v. State of U P and 2 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

Km. Savita Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gangaram Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate and Another

Sanoj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Noor Mohammad and 19 Others Vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another

Onkarnath and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Lallu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others