Dismissed

Dilwant Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a D.D.C. order recalling an earlier consolidation order under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Court found petitioner's underlying application still pending and dismissed the petition, directing the D.D.C. to decide it on merits within six months by a reasoned, speaking order.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3582

¶3

Court No. - 7

¶4

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 37 of 2024

¶5

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

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

In view of order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to private opposite parties is dispensed with.

¶9

Present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-

¶10

"(i) Issue the writ in nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 08/09/2023 passed by respondent No 2 which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the wp.

¶11

(ii) Issue writ of mandamus Commanding the respondents including Contesting parties not to disturb in the peace full possession of petitioner of gata no 409 of village concern as nature of land of petitioner has been changed from Agricultural to Nonagricultural. In the interest of justice."

¶12

Vide order dated 08.09.2023 the opposite party No.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur (in short "D.D.C.") allowed the application dated 08.05.2023, which was filed in relation to the final order dated 15.03.2016 passed in Reference No. 45 under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). The relevant portion of the order dated 08.09.2023, being relevant, reads as under:-

¶13

¶14

" उभ匠料प匀區क㞟䧓सुन⸾⸨ग匠料⸾⸨ካⓙ्ቇ ⸾⸨म- व⸾⸨लीपु渎岼डुहि�匠料⸾⸨म䤂㟣हि�ती匠料च渎岼ሸॠकी चकबन्दीक㜴䁼 अन्तग"तध⸾⸨渎岼⸾⸨-52 क⸾⸨्ቚ क⸾⸨शनहिदन⸾⸨ंक-27-2-2009 क㞟䧓 �ु誁胍�ैካⓙइस誁胍श匠料की्ቚ्቞ 㞟䧓्ቈ渎岼ीहिदन⸾⸨ंक 22-5-2023 प्ቔ⸾⸨वलीप渎岼 उपलब्ध�ैካⓙ誁胍द㜴䁼शहिदन⸾⸨ंक-15-3-2016 क⸾⸨अवल㞟䧓कनहिक匠料⸾⸨ग匠料⸾⸨ካⓙ 匠料�誁胍द㜴䁼शएकप匀區ी匠料अनुम㞟䧓हिदतहिक匠料⸾⸨ग匠料⸾⸨�ैካⓙइस誁胍द㜴䁼शस㜴䁼ग⸾⸨ट⸾⸨ व 408 संख्匠料⸾⸨-407 भी्ቚ भ⸾⸨हिवत�ैካⓙ誁胍द㜴䁼शप⸾⸨रि渎岼तक渎岼न㜴䁼क㜴䁼पूव" हिकसी प匀區क㞟䧓न㞟䧓हिटसन�ीदीग匠料ी�ैካⓙप्ቔ⸾⸨वलीक㜴䁼 नमून⸾⸨ "ब" प渎岼हिकसी न㞟䧓हिटसक⸾⸨उ्ቤ㜴䁼漇鲑न�ी�ैካⓙमूल्ቚ ⸾⸨्ቕ"न⸾⸨प्ቔ हिदन⸾⸨ंक-23-1-2014 म䤂㟣 ब⸾⸨जद⸾⸨匠料कत⸾⸨"गሸॠक㞟䧓प匀區क⸾⸨渎岼न�ीबन⸾⸨匠料⸾⸨ग匠料⸾⸨�ैካⓙइस्ቚ क⸾⸨渎岼誁胍द㜴䁼श हिदन⸾⸨ंक 15-3-2016 एकप匀區ी匠料誁胍द㜴䁼श�ैऔ渎岼इस誁胍द㜴䁼शस㜴䁼अቌኌन्तम भू-चिच्ቔ म䤂㟣्ቇ ⸾⸨मम䤂㟣घ⸾⸨渎岼⸾⸨-52 क㜴䁼्ቚ क⸾⸨शनक㜴䁼 ब⸾⸨दसंश㞟䧓धनहिक匠料⸾⸨ग匠料⸾⸨ �ैካⓙऐसीदश⸾⸨म䤂㟣्ቚ स्तुतब⸾⸨जद⸾⸨匠料渎岼्ቚ ⸾⸨्ቕ"न⸾⸨प्ቔ म䤂㟣हिवलम्ब匀區म⸾⸨क渎岼त㜴䁼 �ु匠料㜴䁼इस㜴䁼स्वीक⸾⸨渎岼हिक匠料⸾⸨ज⸾⸨न⸾⸨उचिचत�ैካⓙतदनुस⸾⸨渎岼हिवलम्ब匀區म⸾⸨हिक匠料⸾⸨ ज⸾⸨त⸾⸨�ैካⓙ

¶15

誁胍द㜴䁼श

¶16

उप渎岼㞟䧓ƣहिवव㜴䁼चन⸾⸨क㜴䁼誁胍ध⸾⸨渎岼प渎岼्ቚ स्तुतब⸾⸨जद⸾⸨匠料渎岼्ቚ ⸾⸨्ቕ"न⸾⸨प्ቔ स्वीक⸾⸨渎岼 हिक匠料⸾⸨ज⸾⸨त⸾⸨�ैካⓙपूव" प⸾⸨रि渎岼तएकप匀區ी匠料誁胍द㜴䁼शहिदन⸾⸨ंक 15-3-2016 हिन渎岼स्तहिक匠料⸾⸨ज⸾⸨त⸾⸨�ैካⓙमूल्ቚ ⸾⸨्ቕ"न⸾⸨प्ቔ प渎岼हिदन⸾⸨ंक-17-10-2023 क㞟䧓 ब�सकीज⸾⸨匠料㜴䁼ካⓙप्ቔ⸾⸨वलीहिदन⸾⸨ंक-17-10-2023 क㞟䧓प㜴䁼श�㞟䧓ካⓙ"

¶17

Assailing the order dated 08.09.2023, learned counsel for

¶18

the petitioner stated that any observation with regard to publication of notification under Section 52 would affect the final disposal of application dated 08.05.2023, as such, petitioner has approached this Court.

¶19

On being asked with regard to the observation that no notice was given to the affected parties, which is required in terms of Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953 as also that applicants of application dated 08.05.2023 were not made party to the proceedings and the order dated 15.03.2016 is a nonspeaking ex-parte order, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not dispute this aspect of the case. The petitioner is only aggrieved from the observation made in the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 with regard to publication of notification under Section 52, as such, only to this extent he has approached this Court.

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the State submitted that after recalling of order dated 15.03.2016 application under Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953 of the petitioner would be heard on merits as is apparent from the operative portion of the order dated 08.09.2023. Thus, the apprehension of the petitioner is completely misconceived. As such, no interference in the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 is required.

¶22

Considered the aforesaid and perused the record including the impugned order dated 08.09.2023.

¶23

From the relevant portion of the order dated 08.09.2023, it is apparent that the application of the petitioner under Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953 presented on 23.01.2014 is pending consideration before the opposite party No.2/D.D.C. and for the purposes of submissions on the said application the date i.e. 17.10.2023 was fixed by the opposite party No.2/D.D.C. and as per statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, the said application has not been disposed of till date and now the case is fixed for hearing on 15.01.2024.

¶24

For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the State. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition challenging the order dated 08.09.2023. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

Before parting, it would be appropriate to observe that the opposite party No.2/D.D.C. shall consider the application preferred under Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953 on its own merits including the law related to maintainability of the application after publication of notification under Section 52 of

¶26

¶27

the Act of 1953 and dispose of the same, expeditiously, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within maximum period of six months by a reasoend and speaking order. To conclude the proceedings aforesaid within time specified, the opposite party No.2/D.D.C. shall avoid unnecessary adjournments to either of the party.

¶28

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 Vinay/-

¶29

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

Dilwant Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dilwant Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and 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

Gayatri Singh U/a 227 Vs Board of Revenue Thu Member Judicial Lucknow and 4 Ors.

Faujdar @ Faujdar Rambali Jaiswar Vs Nayab Tahsildar Tahsil Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur and Another

Shiv Dutt Vs Naib Tehsildar Jagdishpur Tehsil Musafirkhana Mandal Ayodhya Amethi and 2 Others

Ram Jiawan and Others Vs Ganga Das and Others

Chandra Prakash Vs Chief Revenue Officer District Gonda and 26 Others

Sanjay Yadav Vs Naib Tehsildar Bikapur , Ayodhya and Others