Dismissed

Vineet Kumar v. Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi and 9 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2024/1170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Consolidation Officer directing evidence submission in a long-pending title dispute. The Court held that the order was discretionary, interlocutory, and did not decide rights, offering no grounds for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage.

Vineet Kumar Vs Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79956

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1170 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Respondent :- Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi whereby the parties have been directed to complete the evidence in next five dates fixed so that the matter, which is engaging the attention since 1988, can be decided expeditiously.

¶8

At the outset, an objection has been raised by the learned standing counsel that this petition is not maintainable inasmuch as no rights of the parties have been finally adjudicated coupled with the fact that even if at all, the petitioner has any grievance, in the given circumstances, he may file an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation or a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but nevertheless it does not permits the petitioner to straightway come up before this Court in writ jurisdiction, hence, the petition is not maintainable.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner responding to the aforesaid objection has submitted that the petitioner does not have a right to file an appeal in terms of Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 as the appeal lies only against a final order and not against any intermediary order. He further submits that even the revision is circumscribed to the effect that a revision is not maintainable against an interlocutory order. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is maintainable and even otherwise the bar of alternate remedy is merely a self-imposed restriction and it does not bar the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a petition.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the matter relates to title dispute between the contesting parties.

¶11

The record further reveals that the matter had come up before this Court at the behest of the present petitioner on an early occasion. The said orders passed in the earlier round of

¶12

litigation has been placed on record as Annexures No.14 and 18 with the petition. The parties have been fiercely litigating and the issue of title has not attained finality despite a passage of more than thirty years.

¶13

At this stage, where the order impugned has been passed on an application for restoration which was accompanied by an application for seeking condonation of delay, the Consolidation Officer taking a holistic view and finding that the matter is pending since long and has made an attempt to hear the parties on merit and for the said purpose has allowed the restoration application on a cost of Rs.500/- and restored the case to its original number and it further directed that the parties may file their evidences so that the matter can be decided expeditiously. This being a purely discretionary order and the authority has exercised its jurisdiction in a positive manner, hence, this Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India do not generally interfere with orders which do not decide the rights of the parties one way or the other.

¶14

In light of the material placed on record including several orders which have been passed and the parties who have been litigating since long, the exercise of discretion by the Consolidation Officer in restoring the suit with an endeavour to decide the controversy expeditiously does not appear to be an erroneous order or an order without jurisdiction which may permit this Court to entertain the instant petition.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons where the matter is yet to be adjudicated on merit and the petitioner has an option to ventilate his grievance before the appropriate Court, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage as there is no palpable error on the face of the record, which may persuade to this Court to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶16

It is made clear that mere dismissal of this petition or any observations made herein may not be treated as an expression of opinion of merit and the parties are free to raise their objections which may be available to them in law, needless to say, it shall be considered and decided by the Court seized of the matter in accordance with law.

¶17

Costs are made easy.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.12.2024 Rakesh/-

¶19

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

Vineet Kumar v. Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar v. Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Hardoi and 9 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

Mukesh Kumar Pandey vs Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya and Another

Tilak Chandra Soni vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Vikram Singh and 3 Others vs Dy. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and 4 Others

Ayub Khan Vs Divisional Commissioner, Ayodhya and 4 Others

Riyaz Ahmad Khan and Others Vs District Magistrate / District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur and Others

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others