Allowed

Nilesh Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2023WRIC/26968/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition to set aside a Tehsildar's order revoking a land grant, as the initial revocation lacked recorded consideration of Consolidation proceedings. The revocation is set aside, and Tehsildar proceedings renumbered under the Code of Civil Procedure to decide the dispute on merits within six months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed on the ground that the impugned order dated 04.04.2013 is set aside. Proceedings are revived and renumbered under Code of Civil Procedure to be decided on merits within si

Nilesh Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:102248

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26968 of 2016

¶4

Petitioner :- Nilesh Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,Neeraj Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Sarwar Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Tehsildar in the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act-1901 (in short 'the Act1901').

¶7

Various proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 04.04.2013 have been referred by the learned counsel for the parties. However, I find that net result of the said proceedings is that the matter before the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the Act1901 stood revived but the proceedings could not be decided in view of interim order passed by this Court in the present writ petition on 08.03.2018 whereby the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 04.04.2013 was stayed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proceedings before the Tehsildar were not maintainable in view of the pendency of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1953 (in short 'the Act-1953') and, therefore, the order impugned dated 04.04.2013 is without jurisdiction.

¶9

I have perused the order dated 04.04.2013 and I find that whatever is being argued before this Court taking aid of proceedings under the Act-1953, the same was not under consideration before the Tehsildar. The reason may be that the contesting parties did not participate in the proceedings and the matter was decided by observing that pursuant to publication made, nobody had filed objection.

¶10

This Court is not aware of the notifications issued under the Act1953 nor about the nature of proceedings which might be pending or decided. Therefore, since the challenge has been made to the proceedings before the Tehsildar and the contesting parties are before this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping

¶11

the present writ petition pending as it would affect not only the proceedings under the Act-1953 but also proceedings before the Tehsildar.

¶12

Considering the nature of short order passed by the Tehsildar which has been impugned in the present writ petition, the writ petition is allowed only on this ground and the order impugned dated 04.04.2013 is set aside . The proceedings before the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the Act-1901 which may be renumbered as per the provisions of the Code-2006 are revived.

¶13

Both the parties shall be allowed to contest the proceedings on merit by filing and leading proper evidence in support of their respective claim and defense and the Tehsildar shall decide the proceedings in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order after dealing with all the contentions.

¶14

The entire exercise shall completed within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Jyotsana

¶16

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nilesh Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Garg Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Surendra Singh Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Das Vs Up Zila Adhikari Kasia and 9 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Husiar Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others