Dismissed¶7

Virendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023WRIB/3680/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court 2023; WRIT-B No. 3680 of 2023; Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P.; Saurabh Shyam Shamshery J.; Rule 109 U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules 1954; prayer to expedite consolidation proceedings refused; earlier writ petition dismissed as withdrawn without disclosing number of Rule 109 applications; writ petition dismissed; liberty to file fresh application before Consolidation Officer; expeditious disposal direction; Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:208703; decided 1.11.2023.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application under Rule 109 of the Rules of 1954 before the Consolidation Officer concerned; if filed, the authority may take all endeavour to decide it expeditiously. ¶7

Virendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' prayer to expedite the proceedings on their purported application(s) under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 can be allowed, given that their first writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without disclosing the number of such applications.

¶6

Court's answer

The prayer to expedite the proceedings cannot be allowed because the petitioners rushed to this Court despite their first writ petition having been dismissed as withdrawn without disclosing or mentioning the number of purported applications filed under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶7

Key takeaways

The petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application under Rule 109 of the Rules of 1954 before the Consolidation Officer concerned.ratio¶8
In case any such application under Rule 109 is filed, the authority concerned may take all endeavour to decide the same expeditiously.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 48), Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. [Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:208703]; WRIT - B No. - 3680 of 2023; Order Date 1.11.2023. Virendra Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others. The writ petition, which sought expeditious disposal of purported application(s) under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954, was dismissed. The Court observed that the petitioners had rushed to this Court despite their first writ petition having been dismissed as withdrawn without disclosing or mentioning the number of such purported applications; therefore the prayer to expedite the proceedings could not be allowed. The petitioners were, however, granted liberty to file an appropriate application under Rule 109 before the Consolidation Officer concerned, and in case any such application is filed, the authority concerned may take all endeavour to decide the same expeditiously.

Virendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramayan Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others

Khan Bahadur Vs D.D.C. and Others

Sri Shiv Shankar Singh Vs D.D.C. and Others

Ram Bachan Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt. Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Adhar Vs D.D.C. and Others