Dismissed

Akhand Pratap Singh and 3 Others v. Additional Commissioner of Consolidation U.P. Lko and 12 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jun 2022/2146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application to transfer two distinct appeals under Article 227. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a single application cannot seek transfer of two separate appeals and finding no merit in the allegations due to lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order dated 07.06.2022 upholding the rejection of transfer of two appeals remains.

Akhand Pratap Singh and 3 Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2146 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Akhand Pratap Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Of Consolidation U.P. Lko And 12 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gyandeep, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Consolidation (U.P.), Lucknow rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for transfer of Appeal No. 1259 tilted "Sonara Devi and others Vs. Chandra Bhan Singh and others" and Appeal No. 1329 (Savitri Devi and others Vs. Chandra Bhan Singh and others).

¶8

When the Court put a query to the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to how one application for transfer of two Appeals would lie and as to how the grievance of transfer of two distinct Appeals can be raised in one petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, instead of giving a reply to the query of the Court, the learned Counsel proceeded to continue his submission on merits of the case.

¶9

I am of the view that a single application for transferring two distinct Appeals cannot be entertained and the same will be the position regarding a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

In the transfer application filed by the petitioners for transfer of both the aforesaid Appeals, it has been stated that in both the Appeals due to conspiracy hatched by the respondents, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is misusing his position and is fixing short dates for disposal of the matter. It has also been alleged that the respondents are openly claiming in the Village that as they have obtained the stay order without any substance, they will obtain a final order also.

¶11

The petitioners have expressed an apprehension that the authority concerned will pass an ex-parte order against them and for this reason, it is necessary that the matter be transferred to some other districts.

¶12

In the order dated 07.06.2022 passed on the transfer application, the Additional Commissioner of Consolidation has held that the allegations levelled by the petitioners in the transfer application do not appear to be believable and the same do not carry any substance. No evidence has been produced to support the allegations levelled in the application. Accordingly, the application has been rejected being without force.

¶13

The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioners in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the order is absolutely illegal and arbitrary; the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Additional Commissioner of Consolidation, U.P. has lost sight of the fact that the opposite party No. 1 has lost confidence of litigant petitioners and they might be put to suffer the vagaries of multiplicity of litigation; the vendees are expressing confidence in the open society that they shall be successful in appeal and the opposite party No. 1 lost sight of irrefutable fact that Sonara Devi was not entitled to inherit Sukhraj Singh; the order passed by Consolidation Officer was infallible yet the petitioners have lost the trust and

¶14

confidence and the Appeals ought to be transferred to other Court.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that father of the petitioners had filed a Caveat application on 16.12.2013 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but still the matter was heard and stay order was passed without giving him any notice. The order dated 07.06.2022 contains narration regarding objection of other side in which it was categorically stated that no Caveat was registered in the records on the date on which the order has been passed.

¶16

Thus, the allegations regarding passing of a stay order dated 12.10.2013 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation ignoring the caveat is apparently base-less. In any case, even if the allegation of the petitioners is taken to be true that the Caveat filed by them on 16.12.2013 had wrongly been ignored by the then Settlement Officer, Consolidation, it will not give a reasonable ground of apprehension for transfer of the case from the said Court in the year 2022. The other allegations levelled by the petitioners are vague and in view of the finding of the learned court below that the petitioners could not submit any evidence in support of the allegations levelled by them, I find no reason to interfere in the order dated 07.06.2022.

¶17

The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 16.6.2022 Jaswant

¶19

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.06.16 16:54:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhand Pratap Singh and 3 Others v. Additional Commissioner of Consolidation U.P. Lko and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhand Pratap Singh and 3 Others v. Additional Commissioner of Consolidation U.P. Lko and 12 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

Ram Kishore Rajvanshi and Another Vs Deputy Registrar,Firms Socities and Chits Lko. and 4 Others

Brij Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Irrigation and Water Resourse) Lko. and 2 Othes

Sumitra Devi Vs Sub-Divisinal Magistrate Colonelganj Distt. Gonda and Others

Satish Pal and 11 Others Vs Shiv Balak and Another

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration and 3 Others

Jairam and 2 Others Vs Assistant Record Officer Ayodhya and Another