Allowed

Subhash Pandey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2023WRIB/109/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition concerning a consolidation order under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Without a filed counter-affidavit, the petition was permitted based on the record alone, resulting in the setting aside of an impugned order and remittal to the Revisional Authority for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.09.2022 set aside; matter remitted to Revisional Authority for fresh decision within six months.

Subhash Pandey Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198190

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 109 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Subhash Pandey Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satya Priya Mishra,Sudhir Bharti

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents despite represented by their respective counsels. It is also pointed out that till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶7

This Court passed following order on 02.02.2023:

¶8

“At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to correct the parental name of respondent nos. 5 and 6 as mentioned in the array of parties.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for private respondent no. 4 has no objection to the prayer as made by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

As such, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct parental name of respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the cause title of the writ petition, during course of the day.

¶11

Instant writ petition is arising out of proceeding under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 30.06.2004 has kept plot no. 664 out of consolidation operation. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer is affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is submitted that the said order has been passed without following the provision as required under the law.

¶12

The matter requires consideration.

¶13

Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are represented through learned Standing

¶14

Counsel, learned counsel for private respondent no. 4 and learned counsel for the consolidation committee are also present.

¶15

Issue notice to respondent nos. 5 and 6 fixing 03.04.2023 as the date. Petitioner to take steps within ten days.

¶16

In the meantime parties shall exchange their respective affidavit.”

¶17

I have perused the record available in this writ petition and since there is no serious objection to the averments made in writ petition, therefore, I am of the opinion that on the basis of record of writ petition, this writ petition can be allowed. 4. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.09.2022 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to Revisional Authority to decide revision afresh after considering rival submission within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.10.2023 AK

¶19

Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash Pandey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Pandey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6 Others

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

Indravati Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rishi Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Hari Nath Vs D.D.C. and Others

Ram Lal Vs D.D.C.and Others

Jagdesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moti Lal Vs D.D.C. and Others