Disposed

Jhaggar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2023/6435/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court directed the Consolidation Officer to decide a pending restoration application within three months, after hearing parties, to subserve the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the restoration application within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Jhaggar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:85231

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6435 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jhaggar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to direct the opposite party no. 2 i.e.Consolidation OfÏcer, Gauriganj, District-Amethi to decide the restoration application dated 13-09-2021, pending in case no. 724 under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26-05-2007 passed by the Consolidation OfÏcer, Gauriganj, District-Amethi, expeditiously as early as possible.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the stay application of the petitioner is pending since the year 2021, but, even after passing of two years, the same has not been decided as yet.

¶9

After arguing at length, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 2 to decide the restoration application within the stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this court.

¶10

Learned State counsel has no objection.

¶11

Considering aforesaid innocuous prayer, the opposite party no. 2 is directed to decide the restoration application dated 13-09-2021, pending in Case No. 724, within a period of three months, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it, in accordance with law,after

¶12

affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

The aforesaid order is subject to cooperation of the petitioner.

¶14

It is further provided that the authority concerned shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.12.2023 AKS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jhaggar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhaggar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumaiya Begum @ Sumaiya Vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 3 Others

Bhanumati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ramapati Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Prasad Singh Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Lambhua. District-Sultanpur and 8 Others

Raj Karan and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner(Nyayik) Ayodhya Mandal and 16 Others