Gulaba Devi Vs Consolidation Officer Sadar Ii… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

Gulaba Devi Vs Consolidation Officer Sadar Ii… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the pending recall application dated 17.02.2016 most expeditiously, with full opportunity of hearing and without unnecessary adjournments, subject to the petitioner furnishing the undertaking; no adjudication on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct respondent No.1 to consider and decide the petitioner's pending recall/restoration application dated 17.02.2016 (moved in Case No.297 under Section 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953) expeditiously.

Court's answer

Directed respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending recall application dated 17.02.2016 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was to furnish an undertaking (not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate in early disposal) along with a copy of the order; if she failed to furnish it, she would not be entitled to the benefit of the order.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not examine the case of either party on merits; respondent No.1 was to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.; Order Date 13.12.2024) disposed of a petition under Article 227 (MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 6054 of 2024) filed by Gulaba Devi seeking expeditious disposal of her recall/restoration application dated 17.02.2016 moved in Case No.297 under Section 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, pending before the Consolidation Officer, Sadar II, Pratapgarh (respondent No.1). Though numerous dates had been fixed, the recall remained undecided; standing counsel noted that in majority of the dates proceedings could not advance owing to the Bar's resolution abstaining from judicial work. The Court held that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending and directed respondent No.1 to consider and decide the recall application most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting unnecessary adjournments to either side. The direction was conditioned on the petitioner furnishing an undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate in early disposal, failing which she would not be entitled to the benefit of the order. The Court clarified that it had not examined the case of either party on merits, which were left to respondent No.1 to decide strictly in accordance with law. Notice to private respondent No.2 was dispensed with; respondent No.1 was represented through the office of the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.).

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83504

Court No. - 8

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6054 of 2024

Petitioner :- Gulaba Devi

Respondent :- Consolidation Officer Sadar Ii, Pratapgarh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

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.

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

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of her recall/restoration Application dated 17.02.2016 moved in Case No.297, under Section 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 pending before the respondent No.1.

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

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.

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.

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 dated 17.02.2016 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties

preferably as expeditiously as possible.

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.

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 matter strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Rakesh/-

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