Dismissed

Sunil Dutt Pandey and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024/1037/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a remand order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The respondent had remanded a revision regarding a disputed sale deed to the Settlement Officer for fresh adjudication due to unresolved factual issues. The court held that the lower authority was not erroneous in remanding and declined to interfere to allow resolution of facts.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunil Dutt Pandey and Another Vs Deputy Director of… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71336

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1037 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sunil Dutt Pandey And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Raja Babu Gupta,Vikas Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinay Kumar Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwari learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4 on caveat.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C) whereby the revision preferred by the respondent no.4 has been allowed as a consequence the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gonda (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) dated 04.03.2016 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the S.O.C for decision afresh after following directions of remand. The parties have been directed to appear before the S.O.C on 24.10.2024.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that private respondent no.4 on the basis of fictitious sale deed dated 20.03.1971 got his name mutated. It is urged that the said document itself said to have been executed by the father of the petitioners was a fictitious document and certain grounds have been enumerated upon which the said sale deed is sought to be assailed.

¶10

It is urged that the C.O by means of his order dated 13.10.2011 had allowed the objections of the petitioner by ignoring the sale deed of the year, 1971. This came to be assailed by the petitioners before the S.O.C who found that the order passed by the C.O dated 04.03.2016 was erroneous and had been passed against the dead person. The private respondent no.4, being aggrieved preferred a revision before the D.D.C who has allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the S.O.C for decision afresh after permitting the parties to lead adequate evidence in support of their respective contentions. It is this order of remanded which is under challenge before this Court.

¶11

Submission is that the D.D.C ought to have considered and decided the matter itself rather than to have remanded the matter to the S.O.C. In this context, it is urged that the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record this Court finds that certain allegations as well as grounds have been specifically raised by the petitioners, upon which, a challenge has been made to the sale deed dated 20.03.1971. The fact remains that the grounds, upon which, the said sale deed has been assailed has not found any appropriate adjudication either by the Consolidation Officer or the S.O.C. It is noticing this fact that the D.D.C has remanded the matter to the S.O.C to decide the matter afresh and the said order of remand cannot be said to be erroneous or in excess of jurisdiction which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition. Since the matter is remanded to the S.O.C where the date fixed for 24.10.2024, accordingly, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere leaving it open for the petitioner to appear before the appellate court and raise all objections as may be available to them in law included for making any application for interim relief if the same is permissible.

¶13

It is made clear that since the matter is pending before the appellate court, this Court has merely considered the impugned order to assess the sufficiency of the order of remand. Thus, any observation made by this Court may not come in the way of the parties or the S.O.C who shall decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law as per the order of remand.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Harshita

¶16

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

Sunil Dutt Pandey and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunil Dutt Pandey and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Bhagmata Vs Nayab Tahsildar Mawai Tahsil Rudauli Dist. Ayodhya and Another

Smt. Ganga Devi Vs Nayab Tahsildar Mawai Tahsil Rudaulu Dist. Ayodhya and Another

Fakhre Alam Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda Now Balrampur and Others

Krishna Kumar Dubey @ Nanhu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sudhir Kumar Prajapati @ Sudhir Kumar Vs Up Ziladhikari, Tahsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Others

Kailash @ Kailash Nath Vs Addl. Commissioner Administration-I Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others