Disposed

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2021WRIB/872/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court directed the Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow, to decide the petitioner's representation regarding cancellation of a consolidation notification within three months, deeming further delay unproductive.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow to decide the petitioner's application/representation within three months.

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 872 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Mishra,Gyanendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, who is available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 6 is also available. Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel representing respondent-7, Gaon Sabha is also available on audio/video link.

¶6

Anil Kumar Pandey , the writ petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow to take appropriate decision on application/representation dated 16.12.2020 filed by petitioner.

¶7

Record shows that Village- Mulhapur, Pargarna- Sikandra, Tehsil- Phoolpur, District- Prayagraj was brought under consolidation operations by means of gazette notification published under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Petitioner alleges that he as well as other tenure holders of the village do not want fresh consolidation operations in the village. Accordingly, application/representation dated 16.12.2020 has been submitted before respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow requesting him to cancel the notification published under Section 4(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by exercising his powers under Section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 read with Rule 17(b) of U.P. Consolidation Rules, 1954.

¶8

Grievance of petitioner is that inspite of the fact that a period of more than six months has rolled by from the date of filing of application/representation dated 16.12.2020 no decision has been taken by respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow on the representation filed by petitioner.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel contends that grievance of petitioner as prayed for in present writ petition has to be addressed by respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow by himself.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending.

¶11

Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of finally by directing respondent-2, Consolidation Commissioner U.P., Lucknow to decide application/representation dated 16.12.2020 submitted by petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified/computer generated copy of this order, which shall be filed by petitioner before him by means of a notary affidavit.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.7.2021 Saif

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Piroo and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Munshi Lal and 21 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramesh Chandra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tauheed Ahmad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 4 Others

Thunnu Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others