Dismissed

Dilwant Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2024/263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of an application under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, filed after village denotification under Section 52. The court found the petition not maintainable as no consolidation order was shown for implementation and dismissed it with liberty to approach Revenue Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dilwant Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44792

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 263 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dilwant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranvijay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 24th February, 2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur whereby upon an application moved by the petitioner purporting to under Section 48 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been rejected on the ground that after the notification issued under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953, it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said application which was dismissed as not maintainable.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his case is not for deciding any lis between the parties rather he seeks the implementation of the order passed by the concerned Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶9

At this stage, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner to reflect from the record as to which order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation or any other Consolidation Authority is to be impleaded.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such order passed by any of the Consolidation Authorities in his favour. He has referred to his application purporting to be a revision, however, he says that the nomenclature may not be material rather the said application may be treated as an application under Rule 109 and appropriate orders be passed for deciding the said application.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid application and from the perusal of the material on record, apparently, the Deputy Director of Consolidation while rejecting the revision by means of impugned order has specifically held that the village was denotified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings

¶12

Act, 1953 on 27.02.2009 and thereafter the application which has been moved by the petitioner as evident from Annexure No. 3 also does not refer to any such order passed by any of the Consolidation Authorities of which implementation, has been sought, hence, his submission that he may be permitted to be relegated to the Consolidation Authorities under Rule 109 is also not tenable.

¶13

In case if the petitioner has any concern regarding the correction of map or of his rights, he shall be at liberty of approaching the appropriate Revenue Court, however, the instant petition is not maintainable as the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is just and appropriate.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 1.7.2024 Asheesh

¶16

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

Dilwant Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dilwant Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Taihroonnisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and Others

Guru Prasad and Anr. vs Mr Liyaquat Ali (D.J.) Sole Arbitrator Lucknow

Dilwant Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 5 Others

Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Tamseel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Anubhag Lko.