Allowed

Reena v. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2021WRIB/663/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition directed the Consolidation Officer to decide pending cases under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act expeditiously by fixing short dates and avoiding unnecessary adjournments to prevent prejudice to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-2 to decide pending cases with all expedition by fixing short dates, without unnecessary adjournments, within three months of producing this order.

Reena Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 663 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Reena

¶4

Respondent :- The Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Bhushan Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Rai, learned counsel for petitioner, who is available on video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2 and 3 is also available.

¶7

Reena-the writ petitioner has approached this court by means of present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent-2 Consolidation Officer (Final Record), Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh to decide Case No. 181 (Shanti Vs. State) Original Case No. 466 (Surendra Vs. Statee) under Section 42A of UPCH Act within stipulated period.

¶8

Record shows that respondent no.3 Surendra Rai appears to have filed an objection regarding correction of map, which came to be allowed by Consolidation officer vide order dated 22.07.1999. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 22.07.1999, Smt. Shanti Devi Mother-in-law of petitioner seeking recall of order dated 22.07.1999. Aforesaid recall application was filed on the ground that after publication of notification under Section 52 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, no correction of map is permissible by taking recourse to Section 42-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Aforesaid recall/restoration application came to be allowed vide order dated 02.05.2005. Thereafter, vide subsequent order dated 16.06.2005, respondent-2, Consolidation Officer (Final Record), Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh vide order dated 16.06.2005 rejected the objection dated 07.11.1998 filed by respondent-3 seeking correction of map on the ground that same is not maintainable after publication of notification under Section 52 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is against this order that respondent-3 filed a recall/restoration application dated 28.10.2016 seeking recall of order dated 16.06.2005 on the ground that same is ex-parte against respondent-3. This recall/restoration application came to be allowed by respondent-2 Consolidation Officer (Final Record), Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh vide order dated 13.09.2017. Consequently, the matter is now pending before respondent-2 for final disposal.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner is a lady and a small tenure holder. On account of pendency of above noted case serious prejudice is being caused to petitioner. Respondent-3 has obtained an illegal order and is therefore lingering the matter. Consequently, the matter has remained pending for more than 11 years. As such, interest of justice require that respondent no.2 be directed to decide above mentioned case with all expedition by fixing short dates without granting any unnecessary adjournment within the time period fixed by this Court.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the facts as noted above as well as submissions urged by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶11

Having heard learned learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and upon perusal of record, this Court is of the view that interest of justice shall better be served in case a direction is issued to respondent-2, Consolidation Officer (Final Record), Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh to decide Case No. 181 (Shanti Vs. State) Original Case No. 466 (Surendra Vs. Statee) under Section 42-A of UPCH Act pending before him with all expedition by fixing short dates, without granting any unnecessary adjournment within the time period fixed by this Court.

¶12

Accordingly, present writ petition is finally disposed of by directing respondent-2, Consolidation Officer (Final Record), Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh to decoded above mentioned case with all expedition by fixing short dates, without granting any unnecessary adjournment within a period of three months form the date of production of certified copy / computer generated copy of this order before respondent-2 which shall be filed by petitioner by means of a notary affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.7.2021 YK

Reena v. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena v. the 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

Matsya Jivi Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sayama Parveen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Dev Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Sudhakar Chauhan and 20 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others