Disposed

Ram Pratap v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024/1009/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a stay in a land consolidation revision. The court held that further delay would be counterproductive and directed the relevant respondent to decide the pending revision expeditiously within six months without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider and decide the pending revision expeditiously within six months without unnecessary adjournments.

Ram Pratap Vs Deputy Director of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70296

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1009 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Pratap

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Salik Ram Tiwari,Arti Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

The instant petition has been filed with the following main relief:-

¶9

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.8.2024 passed by the opposite party No. 1 in Revision No. 0630 of 2024 "Ram Pratap Versus Sadhna Devi & others" whereby rejected the application for stay which is moved by the petitioner, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the Writ petition.

¶10

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner from the land in question, in the interest of justice."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though revision has been admitted against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 06.08.2024, however, the prayer for stay of the operation of the order dated 06.08.2024 has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 29.08.2024, against which the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶12

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that this petition against the impugned order is not maintainable.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of the revision pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh to consider and decide the Revision No.0630 of 2024 "Ram Pratap Versus Sadhna Devi & others" as

¶15

expeditiously as possible, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of 6 months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Court concerned, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.1 shall decide the aforesaid case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Ashutosh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Pratap v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashadevi Vs Board of Revenue,U.P. at Lucknow Thru. Its Secy. and 4 Others

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Auraiya and Others

Babu Khan Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi and Others

Devi Prakash Pandey Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and 25 Others

Hamidul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Zaheer Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others