The court, conducting a final hearing without affidavits, quashed an order by the Consolidation Officer dated 13.07.2016. The writ petition was allowed on the same terms and conditions as a connected writ petition (Writ-B No. 1912 of 2022).
Impugned order dated 13.07.2016 was quashed; writ petition allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3018 of 2022
Petitioner :- Naikasi (Deceased) And 3 Others Respondent :- Consolidation Officer And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
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 afÏdavits of the parties in the present writ petition (i.e. counter afÏdavit and rejoinder afÏdavit).
The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.07.2016 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Consolidation OfÏcer (respondent no. 1).
Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 order of the date passed by this Court in connected Writ-B No. 1912 of 2022, therefore, instant writ petition may also be decided on the same terms and conditions as observed by this Court in the said writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Accordingly, impugned order dated 13.07.2016 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 by order of date.
Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Atul kr. sri.
Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.29 16:47:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer can be quashed on reference to a connected writ petition.
Whether the writ petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 should be allowed on the same terms and conditions as the connected petition.
Naikasi And 3 Others
Consolidation Officer And 2 Others
Siddharth
Atul Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
