Allowed¶11

Santosh Devi (Deceased) and 4 Others v. Consolidation Officer and Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022WRIB/2952/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of Consolidation Officer's order dated 21.2.2017 passed under Section 9A(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act without opportunity of hearing (natural justice); writ petition allowed on parity with Writ-B No. 1912 of 2022 (Ram Kali (deceased)) decided 1.9.2022 concerning identical land in the same village; decided finally at admission stage with consent of counsel; Allahabad High Court; Siddharth, J.; Santosh Devi; decided 19.11.2022.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.2.2017 quashed; writ petition allowed on the same terms and conditions as observed by this Court in Writ-B No. 1912 of 2022 (order dated 1.9.2022). ¶11

Santosh Devi (Deceased) and 4 Others Vs Consolidation Officer and Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2952 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Santosh Devi (Deceased) And 4 Others Respondent :- Consolidation Officer And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Arun Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel representing state authorities, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and perused the record.

¶6

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed, this Court proceeds to decide the case finally at admission stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties present, without calling for the respective affidavits of the parties in the present writ petition (i.e. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit).

¶7

Challenge in the instant writ petition is order dated 21.2.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceeding under Section 9A(2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.

¶8

Grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 21.2.2017 has been passed sans opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner in violation of the natural justice and fair play.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that identical matter, with respect to the land situated in the same village, as involved in the instant petition, has been considered and decided by this Court, vide order dated 1.9.2022, passed in Writ-B No. 1912 of 2022 (Ram Kali (deceased) and 4 others Vs. Consolidation Officer and two others), therefore, instant writ petition may also be decided on the same terms and conditions as observed by this Court in the said writ petition.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Accordingly, impugned order dated 21.2.2017 is hereby quashed. The instant writ petition is also allowed on the same terms and conditions as observed by this Court in Writ-B No. 1912 of 2022 vide order dated 1.9.2022.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.11.2022 Ruchi Agrahari

¶13

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.11.19 15:16:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Devi (Deceased) and 4 Others v. Consolidation Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Devi (Deceased) and 4 Others v. Consolidation Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Chandra Bhushan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt Pooja Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Baljeet Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaya Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bindeswari Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others