Allowed

Lalta v. Consolidation Officer, Sadar, District Jaunpur and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2021WRIB/336/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer to decide a pending case under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act within one year. The Court imposed strict timelines, cost penalties for adjournments, and directed parties to cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued directing the respondent to decide Case No. 40/41 within one year with strict timelines and penalties for adjournments.

Lalta Vs Consolidation Officer… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 336 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Lalta

¶4

Respondent :- Consolidation Officer, Sadar, District Jaunpur And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Shri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, in the year 2005. Initial registration number of the case was Case No. 75/21.11.05. Thereafter new numbers were allotted as Case No 395/06 then Case No. 254/695. Subsequently again the registration numbers were changed to Case No. 0220/254 and then Case No. 60/75. As on date the case is registered as Case No. 40/41 (Roop Narain Vs. Jai Prakash) which is pending before the respondents No. 1/ Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur. However the same has not been decided till date.

¶7

Shri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no good reason for long pendency of the objection filed by the petitioner. He calls attention to the ordersheet of the court below.

¶8

The only prayer made by Sri Shri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Case No. 40/41 (Roop Narain Vs. Jai Prakash) pending before the respondents No. 1/ Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur, may be decided within stipulated period of time.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the proceedings drawn under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within a reasonable period of time.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the ordersheet.

¶11

The ordersheet discloses that no good cause exists for the inordinate delay in deciding the proceedings taken out under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. No effective hearing has taken place for more than 10 years in the court below.

¶12

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.

¶13

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.1- Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur.

¶14

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.1- Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur, to execute the following directions:

¶15

(1) The respondent no.1- Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur, shall decide the case, registered as Case No. 40/41 (Roop Narain Vs. Jai Prakash) in accordance with law within a period of one year from the receipt of 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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

(3) All parties to the lis are directed to cooperate with the proceeding before the respondent no.1- Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Jaunpur.

¶19

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

¶20

(5) The Consolidation Officer shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶21

(6) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the Consolidation Officer, shall impose costs not below Rs. 5,000/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶22

(7). If necessary the consolidation officer 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.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.2.2021 Dhananjai

Lalta v. Consolidation Officer, Sadar, District Jaunpur and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalta v. Consolidation Officer, Sadar, District Jaunpur and 4 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

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

Amit Kumar and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dayashankar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kanhai @ Kanhaiya Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6 Others