Disposed

Talukdar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024/3769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition seeking that a pending application for interim relief, filed with a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur challenging an order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, be considered without further delay. Court directed respondent no.2 to decide it on the date fixed or within two weeks thereafter, and disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Talukdar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55303

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3769 of 2024 Petitioner :- Talukdar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaviya Singh,Krishna Kumar Shukla,Shubham Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5 has been received by the office of Chief Standing counsel.

¶8

In view of the order proposed by this Court, notice to the private respondent nos.6 to 26 is dispensed with.

¶9

The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that revision has been preferred before the D.D.C Sultanpur against the order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the S.O.C. Along with the revision an application to interim relief was also moved though the revision has been registered, however, the matter has been fixed for 21.08.2024.

¶10

In the meantime, the application for interim relief has also not been considered and in pursuance of the order passed by the S.O.C which is under challenge, certain proceedings initiated by the consolidation authorities. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the aforesaid application to interim relief may be considered.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be met by directing the respondent no.2/D.D.C., Sultanpur to consider and decide the pending application of the petitioner on the date fixed and in case, if it is not possible, then within two weeks thereafter, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶12

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the court concerned shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.8.2024/Harshita

¶15

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

Talukdar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Talukdar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow 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

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

Ramsajivan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ramanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Colector/ District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Israr Khan and Others Vs Naib Tehsildar Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Others

Devesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Sangeeta Yadav vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, Ayodhya and Ors.