Disposed

Dinesh Yadav and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2024/1058/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ restraining the Consolidation Officer from proceeding under Rule 109-A while a revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was pending. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the Deputy District Commissioner to decide the revision within two months and maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy District Commissioner, Barabanki to decide the pending revision within two months; status quo maintained until earlier of revision decision or two-month period.

Dinesh Yadav and Others Vs Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72415

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1058 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dinesh Yadav And Others

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohiuddin Khan,Mohd.Zaid Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 10 has been accepted by the Office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.9.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court with a limited prayer that they have preferred a revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which is engaging the attention of the DDC, Barabanki. It is further submitted that the said revision has been duly admitted and fixed for hearing. However, in the meantime, at the behest of the Gaon Sabha concerned, an application was moved under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. Without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and without waiting for the outcome of the revision, which is pending before the DDC, endeavour was being made to hastily decide the application under Rule 109-A.

¶9

It is urged that the petitioners informed the Consolidation Officer of the pendency of the revision coupled with the fact that a separate application seeking stay of the proceedings before the C.O./interim relief was sought by moving an application before the DDC. However, the said application has not yet been decided. In the meantime, the C.O. is proceeding with the matter under Rule 109-A and it is urged that the same shall adversely impact the rights of the petitioners, hence, till

¶10

such time, the revision is decided, the C.O. may not proceed with the proceedings under Rule 109-A.

¶11

Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha has submitted that insofar as the entry in the consolidation record is concerned, it has already taken place in furtherance of the order passed by the SOC dated 08.12.2023. He further submits that in any case, since the revision is pending, it will be appropriate that the revision may be directed to be decided at an early date.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid submissions and the limited scope of the petition as well as ingredients with which the petitioners have approached this Court, this Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and the State, disposes of the petition with a direction to the DDC, Barabanki to consider and decide the revision of the petitioners preferably within a period of two months from the date of a certified copy of this order is placed before the revisional court.

¶13

It is also further provided that the parties shall cooperate in the hearing and any endeavour made to delay the proceedings will entitle the DDC to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶14

It is further made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merit and it will be open for the DDC, who shall decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶15

Till the decision of the revision or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier, parties shall maintain status quo as exists today.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 25.10.2024 Ashutosh

¶18

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

Dinesh Yadav and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Yadav and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki 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

Smt. Binda Gupta and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner, (Judicial), Prayagraj Division Prayagraj and Others

Ibrar Khan and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration ), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Awadhesh Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Deoria and Others

Md. Vaseem vs the Commissioner Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, Faizabad and Others

M/S Raj Corporation Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Priyanshu Yadav vs Engineer-in-Chief and Head of Department, Public Works Department and others

Ankita Verma vs Sarvesh Kumar