Consolidation-related writ petition concerning the same property and order as a connected petition. Non-joinder of necessary parties was pointed out; counsel was granted time to correct the array of parties, and the matter was listed fresh with the connected petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1047 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jagdish Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Mishra,Shradha Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma,Mohan Singh,Satyam Singh
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4. Sri Ashok Verma learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 and he submits that he has filed his vakalatnama in the registry of the Court even though the caveat on behalf of the said parties have been filed by Sri Satyam Singh who is present in Court. At the outset, it has been pointed out that another petition bearing no.1091 of 2024 (Uday Singh vs DDC and others) is also listed in the fresh list today wherein the same order is assailed as in petition no.1047 of 2024 which is under challenge and in between the same parties relating to the same property.
In this view of the matter, the Writ B no.1091 of 2024 shall stand connected with Writ B no.1047 of 2024.
In the connected petition, Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 and filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record.
Learned counsel appearing in both the petitions respectively on behalf of the private respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 has pointed out that the private respondent no.10-Ranjeet in the present petition no.1047 of 2024 who is respondent no.11 in the connected petition no.1091 of 2024 has already died.
It is further pointed out that the petitioners in both the petitions have only impleaded four sons of late Sri Vishweshwar whereas another son of the Sri Visheshar, Sri Vikram has not been impleaded at all and even otherwise he has died and he is survived by his son Sunil who has also not been made a party.
Considering the aforesaid, time is granted to the learned counsel
for the petitioner to move an application to correct the array of parties as it may deem appropriate.
List along with Writ B no.1091 of 2024 on 11.11.2024 as fresh. Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Harshita
Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Jagdish
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki
Ranjeet
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
