Dismissed

Umesh Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2021WRIB/459/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a time-barred revision under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The court found no ground to interfere as the revision petition lacked pleadings on grievance or prejudice and the plea for condonation of delay was insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.9.2020 dismissing Revision No. 116 of 2020 is affirmed; writ petition dismissed.

Umesh Chandra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 459 of 2021 Petitioner :- Umesh Chandra Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh,Arvind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶3

Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, who is available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 is also available.

¶4

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 23.9.2020, passed by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hathras, whereby Revision No. 116 of 2020 (Umesh Chandra Vs. Rajveer Singh) under Section 48 (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 filed by petitioner, has been dismissed.

¶5

Record shows that an application under section 42 (A) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") was filed by Rajveer Singh. Same was allowed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.10.2011. The effect of the same was that the map was amended. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 21.10.2011, petitioner preferred time barred revision in the year 2016, which came to be registered as Revision No. 116 of 2020 (Umesh Chandra Vs. Rajveer Singh) under Section 48 (3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Same cannot be dismissed vide order dated 23.9.2020, passed by respondent-1 Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hathras.

¶6

From the perusal of memo of revision, copy of which is on record, as Annexure2 to the writ petition, it is apparent that no grievance on account of order dated 21.10.2011 has been pleaded. No ground has been taken in the memo of revision with regard to prejudice caused to petitioner on account of order dated 21.10.2011. Furthermore, only prayer for condonation of delay was made but no seperate delay condonation application supported by an affidavit was filed along with memo of revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of impugned order dated 23.9.2020, has concluded that cause shown for condonation of delay is neither sufficient nor truthful. Apart from above, the Court further finds that there is no averment in the writ petition as to whether order dated 21.10.2011, passed by Consolidation Officer has been or has not been given effect to on the spot.

¶7

For the facts and reasons mentioned herein above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶8

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶9

Order Date :- 13.7.2021/Arshad

Umesh Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Chandra 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

Fariyad Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ashish Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 9 Others

Ram Ishwar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Krishna Kumar Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Birbal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue and 7 Others