Dismissed

Sahaj Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Barabanki and 7 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024WRIB/1134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order allowing a recall application and setting aside an earlier decision. The court held that setting aside the earlier order would itself be illegal due to procedural violations regarding order passage timelines under pandemic regulations. To avoid futility, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Sahaj Ram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Barabanki… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81717

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1134 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sahaj Ram

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Barabanki And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Kumar Shukla,Mohan Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of private respondent Nos.4 to 6 on caveat. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.8.

¶9

Under challenge is the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the DDC, Barabanki, whereby a recall application has been allowed after condoning the delay, setting aside the earlier order dated 08.05.2020 and fixing the matter for hearing on merits on 21.10.2024.

¶10

Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principal order was passed by the DDC on 08.05.2020, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.11 to the writ petition. It is urged that thereafter an application for recall was moved by the private respondents seeking to recall the order dated 08.05.2020 along with an application seeking condonation of delay and by means of the impugned order dated 10.10.2024, the DDC allowed the application for condonation of delay and set aside the earlier order dated 08.05.2020 and fixed the matter for hearing on merits.

¶11

The submission is that this exercise of power by the DDC is per se bad in the eyes of law as the DDC does not have the

¶12

power to review its order and in support of this, the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Anarkali and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1997 (15) LCD 921.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of material on record, it appears that the hearing of the revision was done on 04.02.2020 as indicated in Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, which are extracts of the ordersheets. The matter was fixed for order on 11.02.2020, where after it was further listed on 15.02.2020. Once again the date was fixed for 22.02.2020 and again the matter came to be listed on 08.05.2020 and on which date the order came to be passed and the revision of private respondent was rejected after three months.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and seen in context with the extracts of the ordersheets, which have been brought on record, it could not be disputed that the impugned order dated 08.05.2020 was passed after about three months from the date when the hearing was concluded. As it is if the order could not be passed within a period of 30 days, then in all prudence, the authority should have re-fixed the matter for rehearing, but same was not done. Another accentuating circumstance, which is seen from the instant case is that from 24 March, 2020, the entire country was put in a lockdown in view of Covid-19 Pandemic. In any case, thereafter there were orders to ensure that in case if any of the parties did not appear, then no advance order to be passed. It is taking note of the aforesaid that the recall application moved by private respondents was considered and allowed.

¶15

This Court is of the view that the proposition being pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is apparently not

¶16

applicable in the instant case in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic coupled with the fact in terms of Regulation 34-F of the U.P. Revenue Act Manual, the authorities could not have passed an order after three months, whereas on the expiry of 30 days from the date of receiving the file for orders, if order were not passed, the authority should have re-fixed the matter for hearing. This position could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. As a consequence, what this Court finds is in case if the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 is set aside on the ground that the court did not have the power to review then in any case, it would gave rise to another illegal order, which cannot be sustained.

¶17

This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not going to pass a futile order or pass an order, which may give rise to another illegal order. Thus for the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 5.12.2024 Ashutosh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sahaj Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Barabanki and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahaj Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Barabanki and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brijendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.Throu.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Revenue and Anr.

Kripa Shankar Vs Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and 4 Others

Dilip Kumar and 2 Others Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti and 5 Others

Smt. Farheen Hasan vs Adeeb Alam Khan

Ravi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ram Chandra Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others