Allowed

Bhopal Singh v. D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar and Others

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023WRIB/680/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition quashing a common revision order dated 23.11.1996 which disturbed a specific land allotment previously finalized between the petitioner and Deputy Director of Consolidation, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.11.1996 set aside; matter remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide revisions afresh within six months.

Bhopal Singh Vs D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210384

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 680 of 1997

¶4

Petitioner :- Bhopal Singh Respondent :- D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Jain,Rahul Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Sankatha Rai,Bajrangi Mishra,Ramesh Pundir,Rekha Pundir,S.C.,Sunita Sharma,Vinod Kumar Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Muzammil I. Qurasi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ramesh Pundir, Advocate for contesting-respondents.

¶7

In the present case, in a proceeding arising out of chak allotment the Consolidation Officer has passed an order dated 07.06.1994. Said order was challenged by way of filing two sets of appeals which were decided by two different orders of same date, i.e., 05.09.1994 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

¶8

At this stage, it appears that two different sets of revisions were filed. Deputy Director of Consolidation has proceeded to decide revisions. One of the revision was decided on 28.10.1995 whereby petitioner was allotted a particular chak and since he was satisfied, he has not challenged the same though a restoration application was filed whereby earlier order passed on 28.10.1995 was modified to certain extent vide order dated 17.01.1996. Admittedly petitioner was satisfied even by modified order dated 17.01.1996 as well as none of the parties are aggrieved by said orders dated 28.10.1995 and 17.01.1996.

¶9

On the other hand 19 revisions were decided by a common order dated 23.11.1996 wherein order dated 05.09.1994 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as order dated

¶10

07.06.1994 passed by Consolidation Officer were challenged.

¶11

According to petitioner the fact about earlier orders dated 28.10.1995 and 17.01.1996 was brought into notice of Revisional Authority and was noted in impugned order also. However, without taking note of it as well as consequence thereof all the revisions were decided together whereby chak of petitioner was disturbed. Said order dated 23.11.1996 is impugned in present writ petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioner was satisfied with allotment of chak as determined vide orders dated 28.10.1995 and 17.01.1996 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, it was beyond jurisdiction of Revisional Authority to interfere it while deciding other revision petitions, ignoring the outcome of said orders.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents is not able to dispute the above referred factual aspect.

¶14

In aforesaid circumstances, it is a case where an irregularity has been erupted. Therefore, impugned order dated 23.11.1996 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide revisions afresh. It is directed that while deciding revisions, the Revisional Court will take note of orders dated 28.10.1995 and 17.10.1996, which have attained finality. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

With aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.11.2023 AK

¶17

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

Bhopal Singh v. D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhopal Singh v. D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar and 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

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

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

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

Smt Durgavati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 13 Others

Smt. Madhuri Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Gauri Shankar and Another Vs D.D.C. and 5 Others