Disposed

Abdul Majeed and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2024/1034/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandatory transfer of pending land consolidation proceedings from District Raebareli to the newly carved District Amethi. The court rejected the automatic jurisdictional claim, directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to expedite and decide the matter within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli to expedite proceedings and decide the revision within four weeks.

Abdul Majeed and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73668

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1034 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Abdul Majeed And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following main reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the authority concern to transfer the Revision No. 92/2024 (old No. 170/2023) filed on 24.04.2023 pending in the court of D.D.C./A.D.M. (F&R) Raebareli in; re Abdul Majeed and others V/s Mo. Nadeem and others to the court of D.D.C. Amethi, in the interest of justice;

¶9

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that proceedings relating to consolidation operations were initiated in District Raebareli. The initial orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation were both passed by the Authorities of District Raebareli. While the revision under Section 48(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1953") was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli, the District Raebareli was bifurcated and a new district of Amethi was carved out.

¶11

It is in the aforesaid backdrop the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the unit of which the consolidation operations is in question has now come in District Amethi. The petitioners as well as the private respondents who are the contesting respondents are also the residents of now District Amethi.

¶12

It has been submitted that earlier an application was moved before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, he

¶13

rejected the same indicating that in terms of Rule 65-1 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954, he does not possess the jurisdiction to entertain an application for transfer which relates to an intra-district transfer i.e. to say from Raebareli to Amethi (the new carved district). It is in this view that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the relief which has been quoted hereinabove.

¶14

The ground taken in the instant petition as shall be evident from the perusal of the paragraphs 9 to 17 would indicate that at first instance, the issue raised is that since the new district of Amethi has been carved out, consequently, all the proceedings must be continued in the newly carved district and could not continue in the old district of Raebareli. Thereafter certain issue relating to obtaining of certified copies has been mentioned to indicate that the same takes long since the records are available in the old district and further a ground of inconvenience travelling from District Raebareli to District Amethi has been stated in paragraph 16.

¶15

A vague averment has been made that there are certain hardened criminals of district Raebareli who are inimical to the petitioners, however, apart from this bald assertion, there is nothing on record to indicate it with particularity.

¶16

It is in the aforesaid circumstances that a direction in the nature of mandamus has been sought.

¶17

In so far as the issue as to whether the proceedings after carving out of a new district in and continue in the old district of Raebareli is concerned, the same is covered by the Government Order dated 04th July, 2020 wherein it has been indicated that all proceedings pending prior to the carving out of a new district would continue without an impact of carving out a new district. Thus, the submission to the effect that as a matter of course, the proceedings should be transferred from District Raebareli to District Amethi on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, is turned down.

¶18

The other ground that has been raised is in context with the being the convenience of the forum and in this regard the averments made are absolutely vague. Nothing has been indicated as to how any prejudice which is being caused.

¶19

Be that as it may, since the revision is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli where the matter is being heard and it has been informed that the matter is now next listed on 12.11.2024.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances, apparently in light of the pleadings and the averment made by learned counsel for the petitioner for transfer, is not cogent enough for this Court to intervene and pass orders of transfer, however, this Court deems appropriate that since the revision is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Raebareli, he is directed to expedite the proceedings and as far as possible after hearing the parties concerned shall decide the revision on its own merit on the next date fixed and if not so then preferrably within a period of four weeks after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments.

¶21

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 8.11.2024 Asheesh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abdul Majeed and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Majeed and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Salim Vs Addl. Commissioner, Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Smt. Kiran Vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Shyam Lal Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate,Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Daya Ram Mishra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others

Smt. Savitri and Another Vs Sub Division Officer, Amethi and Others

Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs Tahsildar Nyayik, Tahsil Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and Others