Disposed

Shivpati Devi v. Consolidation Officer,, Tehsil Sadar, Raibareli and Others

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024A227/4394/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking orders for the expeditious decision of a recall application pending before the Consolidation Officer. The Court directed the officer to decide the matter quickly and the petitioner to provide an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to decide pending recall application expeditiously; petitioner directed to furnish undertaking.

Shivpati Devi vs Consolidation Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63491

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4394 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shivpati Devi Respondent :- Consolidation Officer,, Tehsil Sadar, Raibareli And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.2 to 5 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of recall application dated 14.10.2022 moved in Case No.162/CO/19.11.2016, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, pending before the respondent No.1.

¶9

It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the recall application of the petitioner has not yet been decided.

¶10

Learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the extract of the order-sheet and has pointed out that in majority of the dates, the proceedings before the respondent No.1 could not advance on account of the resolution passed by the Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending recall application of the petitioner most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties

¶13

preferably as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.1 shall decide the aforesaid recall application strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Rakesh/-

¶18

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

Shivpati Devi v. Consolidation Officer,, Tehsil Sadar, Raibareli and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivpati Devi v. Consolidation Officer,, Tehsil Sadar, Raibareli and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Avnish Singh Vs Tahshildar (Judicial), Tehshil Mankapur, Gonda and Others

Adarsh Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Saiyad Ali Ahamar and Another Vs Raident Academic Improvement Society, Hardoi and Another

Imran Farooqui Vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Zone, Ayodhya and Others

Vijay Kumar vs Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and 3 Others

Kiran Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others