Allowed

Rajpal Singh v. Additional Commissioner and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2021WRIB/924/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a writ petition challenging a transfer application rejection under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Additional Commissioner illegally dismissed the application on maintainability rather than assessing prejudice, despite being the competent authority to transfer cases between districts. The impugned order was quashed and remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.10.2020 quashed; matter remanded to respondent to decide afresh within two months.

Rajpal Singh Vs Additional Commissioner and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 924 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajpal Singh Respondent :- Additional Commissioner And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, who is available on audio/video link.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 is also available.

¶7

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order 27.10.2020 passed by respondent 1, Additional Commissioner of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow in Transfer Application No.18/937/2020 (Rajpal Singh vs Smt. Kamal Fatma and others) under Section 65(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶8

Record shows that respondent 3 filed an objection under Section 9 (a)(2) of the Act on 20.02.2018 claiming right, title and interest over the land in dispute. Subsequently, petitioner who is respondent in objection filed by respondent no.3, filed a transfer application before respondent 1 seeking transfer of the objection filed by respondent 3 to the Consolidation Officer of any other district. This application came to be rejected by respondent 1, Additional Commissioner of Consolidation by means of impugned order dated 27.10.2020.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that by means of impugned order, respondent 1, Additional Commissioner of Consolidation has rejected the transfer application filed by petitioner on the ground of maintainability. Reasoning so

¶10

recorded in impugned order is manifestly illegal as respondent 1 is competent authority to transfer a case pending under provision of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act from one district to another.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the submission urged by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶12

Admittedly, petitioner had filed a transfer application seeking transfer of the objection filed by contesting respondent 3 to another district. Therefore respondent 1 could have decided the transfer application filed by petitioner only by recording a finding regarding prejudice with the presiding officer or the court. However, respondent 1 has dismissed the transfer application on the ground of maintainability which is not only illegal but also erroneous as respondent 1 is the competent authority to transfer a case pending under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act from one district to another

¶13

In view of above, present writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed. It is, accordingly, allowed . Impugned order dated 27.10.2020 passed by respondent 1, Additional Commissioner of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow (annexure-3) to the writ petition is hereby quashed. Matter is remanded to respondent 1, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order which shall be filed by petitioner before respondent 1 by means of a notary affidavit.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.7.2021 A.Kr.

Rajpal Singh v. Additional Commissioner and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajpal Singh v. Additional Commissioner 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

Jaylal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Pal Singh and Another Vs District Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Ram Adhar Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Manveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Sentu Kumar Vs Board O Revenue and 12 Others