Dismissed

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar v. Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and 8 Others

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024/605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition seeking to challenge the order rejecting an application for transfer of a consolidation proceeding. The court held the petition was not fit for interference as the rejection was based on technical grounds, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with liberty to move an appropriate application for transfer before the court concerned.

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53422

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 605 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Tushar, Through His Attorney Sarvesh Kumar Respondent :- Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Niwas Pathak,Raghaw Ram Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Prakash Singh,Satyendra Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Jay Prakash Singh learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.7 and Sri Satyendra Kumar Tiwari learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos.6 and 7.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby the transfer application moved by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.5 is working under the influence of the privaterespondents, who had passed an interim order illegally on the application preferred by them behind the back of the petitioner and has also made overwriting over the order-sheets.

¶9

Against the aforesaid, the petitioner moved an application for transfer of the case in the Court of SOC, who rejected the said transfer application by means of the impugned order.

¶10

It is urged that the Court below while rejecting the transfer application has not even considered the grounds as mentioned by the petitioner in his application for seeking transfer and only on the basis of the procedural deficiency, the said application was rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the private respondents while opposing the aforesaid submissions stated that the transfer application was rejected on technical ground since the petitioner had not indicated the case number of which transfer was sought nor he could indicate under what authority he had filed the transfer application and in such circumstances the said order cannot be said to be faulty. In any case, if the petitioner has a genuine cause, he can always move a fresh petition for transfer by

¶12

disclosing the necessary details and his authority to file it, if that is so required.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the application for transfer was rejected only on two grounds that he had not mentioned the case number of which the transfer was sought and could not indicate under what authority the transfer application was moved and not on merits.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find this petition to be a fit case to interfere. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner who may move an appropriate application before the court concerned for transfer which needless to say shall be considered on its own merit by the court concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Harshita

¶16

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

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar v. Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar v. Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and 8 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

Satya Dev Pathak Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Jakir Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Mohd. Sadique Vs Union of India Deptt. of Air Customs Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector Air Customs Officer

Mohd. Usman vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Jyoti Shankar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Tufail Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others