Dismissed

Shiv Shankar and Others v. Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024/96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Shiv Shankar challenging a consolidation officer's order. The court found that the petitioners concealed the existence of a subsequent order passed on 20.11.2023 relying on Bhashkar Laxman Jadhav, deeming the petition barred by concealment of facts.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the library of District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow within a week.

Shiv Shankar and Others Vs Consolidation Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 96 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar And Others

¶4

Respondent :- Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow And Another

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashikant Verma,Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J .

¶7

This Court had heard the matter on 01.03.2024 and the Court had passed the following order which reads as under:-

¶8

"1. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners. In the prelunch session when this matter was taken up, the junior counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra was present and it was informed that he may call the arguing counsel Shri Mishra to be present before the Court at 2.15 P.M. In the post lunch session also, junior of Shri Mishra had appeared and he informed that a different counsel shall come shortly and therefore the matter was deferred to be taken up after sometime. Even after the lapse of half an hour the case has been called out again and Shri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra arguing counsel is not present.

¶9

2. The issue in question in this petition was in respect of as to whether the order passed by the Consolidation Authority dated 07.07.2023 has been passed appropriately or not.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while making his submissions on 15.02.2024 had urged before the Court that an order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 25.09.2013 and after a lapse of ten years an application for recall was moved by the private respondent no.2 and the Consolidation Officer had passed an order on the said application for recall staying the operation of the order dated 25.09.2013 while granting the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and it was urged that the process as adopted by the respondent no.1 was patently erroneous.

¶11

4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Court had required the learned Standing Counsel to get a personal affidavit filed by the Consolidation Officer under what circumstances the said order was passed.

¶12

5. In furtherance thereof, Shri Anil Kumar Singh Bisen, the Consolidation Officer, Lucknow has filed the personal affidavit indicating the manner in which respective orders were passed and more particularly in paragraph7 to 13, it has been indicated the various dates upon which the parties were heard and respective orders were passed.

¶13

6. It has been pointed out that after the order dated 07.07.2023, which has been assailed in the instant petition after a lapse of more than six months, the petitioners have not brought the complete facts and subsequent orders passed in the said case. This has been explained by the Consolidation

¶14

Officer in paragraph-7 to 13 of his affidavit and he has also annexed the copies of the order dated 20.11.2023 where after hearing the parties, the order granting the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act the recall application was allowed was passed.

¶15

7. The Court has perused the writ petition and it is evident that the order dated 22.11.2023 has not been annexed, moreover, there is no pleadings regarding the order passed nor it has been mentioned that the said order was passed after hearing both parties nor it has been challenged.

¶16

8. In light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhashkar Laxman Jadhav and another Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others 2013 (11) SCC 531, the instant petition suffers from the vice of concealment of fact and misrepresentation, the petitioners have not disclosed the true facts and subsequent orders which have been passed in between the parties.

¶17

9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter and the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the library of District Legal Services Authority, Lucknow within a week.

¶18

10. After the aforesaid order was dictated in open Court, Shri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared before the Court and requested that he may be permitted a day's time to examine the matter and make his submissions.

¶19

11. Considering the aforesaid, put up this matter on 4th of March, 2024 as a first case, as fresh."

¶20

Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the facts that the order dated 20.11.2023 had been passed and the order which is assailed in the instant petition already stood merged in the said order.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, where the petitioners have not disclosed the passing of the order dated 20.11.2023 is apparently amounts to concealment.

¶22

Accordingly, the earlier order dated 01.03.2024 shall stands and the petition is dismissed with the aforesaid cost as mentioned in the earlier order dated 01.03.2024.

¶23

O rder Date :- 4.3.2024 Asheesh

¶24

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

Shiv Shankar and Others v. Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar and Others v. Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Kayyoom and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Gonda Now Balrampur and 3 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs Ram Naresh and 2 Others

Smt. Pushpa Gupta Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 Others

Smt.Karamraji Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Others

State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Pubilc Works Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.and 2 Others Vs M/S Dsc Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Its Director Sri Harminder Singh and Another

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs Additional Civil Judge Junior Division Gonda and 3 Others