Disposed

Ajimullah v. Additional Commissioner Consolidation Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2022/52/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a transfer application, as the petition was not maintainable because the specific prayer against the respondent below was absent. Instead, the petitioner was directed to have the restoration application disposed of prior to the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to dispose of the pending restoration application after hearing parties before disposing of the pending appeal.

Ajimullah Vs Additional Commissioner… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 52 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajimullah Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Consolidation Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶7

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.2021 passed by opposite party no.1 in Transfer Application No.141/2021 under Section 65(2) of U.P. C.H. Act, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

¶8

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to transfer the Appeal No.1235, under Section 11(1) of C.H. Act; Jalim and others Vs. Shakurullah and others from the court of opposite party no.2 to any other District.

¶9

iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal bearing No.1235; Jalim and others Vs. Shakurullah and others, under Section 11(1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act is pending before the respondent no.2 since 1997. It is further submitted that the respondents have moved an application for restoration along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, however, the respondent no.2 instead of disposing of the restoration application is adamant to dispose of the appeal along with restoration application and respondent no.2 is also inclined to decide the appeal in favour of private respondents and therefore, the appeal pending before the respondent no.2 be transferred to any other court of similar jurisdiction.

¶11

Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing

¶12

Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 2 as well as Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 vehemently submit that the impugned order, which has been challenged by filing this writ petition, is only with regard to the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner pertaining to transfer of the appeal from the court of respondent no.2 and no such prayer pertaining to the disposal of the restoration application prior to the disposal of the appeal has been made before the respondent no.1, who has passed the impugned order and therefore the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, keeping in view the order intended to be passed by this Court, issuance of notice to the private respondent(s) no.4 to 17 is hereby dispensed with.

¶14

Perusal of the record and submissions, which have been made by learned counsel for the parties, would reveal that the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the fact that the respondent no.2 is allegedly of the opinion to dispose of the appeal as well as restoration application moved by the private respondent nos.3 to 17 simultaneously. In the considered opinion of this Court, no prejudice would be caused to any party if any direction is given to the respondent no.2 to dispose of the restoration application moved by the private respondent nos.3 to 17 prior to the disposal of the appeal.

¶15

In view of above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.2 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur to dispose of the restoration application moved by the private respondent nos.3 to 17, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, prior to the disposal of the appeal, in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.2.2022 Anupam S/-

¶17

Digitally signed by ANUPAM SINGH PATEL Date: 2022.02.07 16:57:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajimullah v. Additional Commissioner Consolidation Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajimullah v. Additional Commissioner Consolidation Lko. and 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

Lovlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru.Collector Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Ram Pher Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Distt. Gonda and Others

Surya Prakash Singh S/O Late Ambika Baksh Singh Vs Shekhar Chaudhari S/O Chhote Lal Chaudhari and Ors.

Dinesh Vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial ) Ayodhya Mandal and 4 Others

Subedar and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,Gonda and Others

Ram Kumari Vs Tehsildar Tehsil Tiloi,Amethi and Others