Disposed

Harish Chandra Dubey and 2 Others v. Settlement Officer Consolidation and 9 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jun 2021WRIB/560/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that notice need not be issued to certain respondents. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage directing the Settlement Officer to decide the pending stay application expeditiously within four months after hearing all concerned parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no.1 to decide stay application No.1396 of 2020 expeditiously within four months after hearing all parties.

Harish Chandra Dubey and 2 Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 560 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Dubey And 2 Others Respondent :- Settlement Officer Consolidation And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Mishra,Umesh Kumar Prasad

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Umesh Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. Notice need not be issued to respondent nos.3 to 10 in view of the order proposed to be passed in the writ petition.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :

¶8

" a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent no.1 to decide petitioners stay Application No.1396 of 2020, Harish Chandra and others Versus Prakash Chandra and others within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

b. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents not to dispossess of petitioners from land in dispute and selling out same land to any body as well change the nature of same land till the disposal of appeal pending before the court of respondent no.1."

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed before the respondent no.1 in the year 2018 along with stay application. The said stay application is pending consideration since then. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is for expeditious disposal of the stay application in appeal No.3222 of 2018.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel does not oppose the limited prayer so made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

As no useful purpose would be served in keeping this matter pending, without going into the merits of the case this writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for any counter affidavit with the direction upon

¶13

respondent no.1 to decide stay application in Appeal No.3222 of 2018 expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of production of a copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court, strictly in accordance with law after hearing all concerned parties.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 30.6.2021 Kushal

Harish Chandra Dubey and 2 Others v. Settlement Officer Consolidation and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra Dubey and 2 Others v. Settlement Officer Consolidation and 9 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

Zakir Hussain Vs State of U.P and Another

Shiv Karan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hem Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajju Prasad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Sub Divisional Officer and 2 Others

Uma Niwas Pandey @ Uma Nivash Vs Chairman, Baroda U P Bank and 2 Others