Disposed¶11

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024/993/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - B No. 993 of 2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:68478; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; decided 3.10.2024; ex-parte order; absence of service of notice of revision; no satisfaction recorded on notice; statutory/alternative remedy; proviso to Section 209 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; application for setting aside ex-parte order; Section 48(3) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; Dy. Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh; Case No. 179 of 2022 Kripa Shanker & ors. v. State; Article 226; petition disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Liberty left open to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the authority concerned (for setting aside the ex-parte order); the authority to decide it in accordance with law, expeditiously. ¶11

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others Vs Deputy Director of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68478

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 993 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vishnu Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Fareed Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Fareed Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the opp. party No. 1/State.

¶7

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged validity of an ex-parte judgment and order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, in Case No. 179 of 2022, Kripa Shanker & ors. v. State, under Section 48(3), U.P. Consolidation of Hodings Act, 1953.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the aforsaid order has been passed without service of notice of revision on the petitioners, therefore, the order is not sustainable.

¶9

A perusal of the order dated 25.311.2022 indicates that no satisfaction has been recorded by the authority concerned/Dy. Director of Consolidation regarding service of notice of the revision on the opp. parties. Proviso to Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that any party aggrieved by an order passed ex parte , may move an application for setting aside such order.

¶10

As the order under challenge is an ex parte order, the petitioners have a statutory remedy under the provisio appended to Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 of filing an application for setting aside the order.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the

¶12

authority concerned, which shall be decided in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶13

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶14

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 A.Nigam

¶15

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

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Khelavan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Abdul Kadir Alias Kadir Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) District Gonda and 8 Others

Shiv Nath and 2 Others Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Another

Ram Prakash Giri Vs Rakesh Giri and 7 Others

Santram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others