Dismissed

Deshraj v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024A227/3392/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Allahabad considered a writ petition under Article 227 seeking direction to decide a pending interim relief application in land consolidation proceedings. The Court dismissed the petition as it had already been approached twice, and the petitioner failed to substantiate claims regarding the status of the interim application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Deshraj vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49855

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3392 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Deshraj

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Ankit Kumar Trivedi

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶8

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶9

Heard Shri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 5 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel.

¶10

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

¶11

" i. Direct the opposite party no.1 to decide the interim relief application filed in revision No.885 of 2024 pending before opposite party no.1. Further issue a order or direction in the nature of commanding the opposite parties to adhere strict action against guilty officer involved in illegal actions done by them whereby they dig the subject field.

¶12

ii. Direct the opposite party no.1 to 3 to ensure that the peaceful possession of the petitioner would not disturb by private opposite parties."

¶13

The record further indicates that previously the petitioner had approached the Division Bench of this Court in WRIT-C No.2960 of 2024 (Deshraj And Others vs. District Magistrate, Barabanki and Others) whereby the Division Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 02.04.2024 had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki by filing an application for interim relief or to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-

¶14

"This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶15

"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to stop the construction being carried by private opposite parties over disputed land during the pendency of litigation."

¶16

It is the case of the petitioners that the consolidation operation were going on in village Mohammadpur, Pargana and Tehsil- Fatehpur, District Barabanki in which an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 08.11.2023 without hearing the petitioners. The petitioners filed an Appeal

¶17

No.631 of 2023 "Deshraj and others Vs. Raghunahdan and others" under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation and Holding Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki. The said appeal was entertained and an order for maintaining status quo was passed on 25.11.2023. Later on the order dated 25.11.2023 was recalled by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki vide its order dated 19.01.2024. The private respondents have started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners in pursuance of order of the Consolidation Officer dated 08.11.2023 which is the subject matter of the Appeal No.631 of 2023.

¶18

This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Barabanki by filing an application for interim relief or to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act."

¶19

The record further indicates that despite the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner was not satisfied as his grievance was not adequately redressed, accordingly, the petitioner once again came before the Division Bench of this Court in WRIT-C No.4490 of 2024, wherein considering the earlier petition filed by the petitioner and the prayer made in the subsequent petition, the Division Bench of this Court by means of its order dated 21.05.2024 disposed of the writ petition as well directing the petitioner to approach the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the pending appeal filed another application and it further directed that in case if the petitioner moves an application within ten days, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation shall look and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced for ready reference:-

¶20

"5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, the petitioner had made an application to the Settlement Officer Consolidation praying for maintenance of status quo during the pendency of the petition, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-6 to the petition. No steps were taken by the Appellate Authority in pursuance of this application filed on 04.04.2024. On the other hand, the private respondent no. 6 to 22 filed an unsigned application on 12.03.2024 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barabanki praying for possession to be delivered to them in pursuance of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer without disclosing that the Appeal is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. On such application dated 12.03.2024, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has directed the Consolidation Officer Chakbandi and Naib Tehsildar Fatehput, and the SHO Deva, to take appropriate action as per law. In the garb of such application and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 14.03.2024, possession of the land in question has been delivered forcibly to the respondent nos.6 to 22. Hence this petition.

¶21

This petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the SOC in the pending Appeal by filing another application. If such application is filed within ten days, the SOC shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law."

¶22

Be that as it may, in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has once again approached this Court seeking a direction to decide the application for interim relief said to have been filed in Revision No.885/2024 pending before the respondent No.1. However, the record indicates that the application which is said to have been moved has not been placed on record nor it has been indicated as to the fact that after the order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.05.2024 whether any application was moved by the petitioner and if so, what has been its fate as neither the ordersheets relating to the proceedings before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation post 21st May, 2024 have been brought on record. Even otherwise, no material has been placed on record to indicate that which revision has been preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor the order-sheets of the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been placed on record to help the Court to ascertain the facts which have been sought to be placed by the petitioner.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid as well as the fact that the petitioner has already approached this Court twice, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is accordingly dismissed .

¶24

It is made clear that mere dismissal of this petition would not come in the way of the petitioner to pursue their remedies before the appropriate Court which may be agitated in pending proceedings before the appropriate Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.7.2024 Rakesh/-

¶26

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

Deshraj v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Deshraj v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Anil Kumar and Another Vs Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Barabanki and Another

Bheem Sen and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Pramila Vs Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and Others

Arunesh Chandra Vs Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Doodh Nath and 5 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others