Dismissed

Lavkush and 2 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2024WRIB/1173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a writ bench order remitting a land consolidation appeal to the Settlement Officer for fresh decision with rebuttal opportunity. Court dismissed the writ petition noting no rights were affected, leaving matter open for contesting appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order remanded to SOC remains intact.

Lavkush and 2 Others vs Deputy Director of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78930

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1173 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Lavkush And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Barabanki And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.6.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 21.10.2024, whereby the revision preferred by private respondent No.4 has been allowed and the matter has been remitted to the SOC for decision afresh after providing an opportunity of rebuttal to the private respondent.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a time barred appeal was engaging the attention of the SOC and issue of maintainability was also raised. However, the matter was heard by the SOC and on 11.07.2023 fixed it for order on 25.07.2023. It is also stated that the matter was not decided on 25.07.2023 but on a later date.

¶9

This order came to be assailed by private respondent No.4 before the DDC primarily on the ground that after the matter was heard, certain documents were filed by the petitioner to explain the delay, which has been taken note of. It also noticed that since said documents were not provided to the other party nor an opportunity of rebuttal was granted, hence the DDC allowed the revision of private respondent No.4 and remitted the matter for decision afresh after providing an opportunity to private respondent No.4 including the opportunity to file any document in rebuttal.

¶10

The submission is that since the matter was there and the private respondent had not raised any objection at the time when the documents were filed and hence on a hyper-technical argument, the revision has been allowed.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that the DDC has merely remanded the matter. No expression of opinion on merits has been given and it is not disputed that the documents which were filed were never

¶12

provided to the private respondent No.4 nor any opportunity for rebuttal was provided.

¶13

Be that as it may, since no rights of the parties are affected and it is also not disputed that no opportunity for rebuttal was provided to respondent No.4, in such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition, leaving it open for the petitioners to contest the appeal.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 28.11.2024 Ashutosh

¶16

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

Lavkush and 2 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavkush and 2 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jang Bahadur and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Pyare Lal Pandey Memorial Inter College, Sitapur Thru. Its Manager Alok Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Aneeta Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Rae Bareli and 3 Others

Shree Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Satyavrat Pathak vs Dr. Nitin Bansal Commissioner and Another

Prabhawati vs Consolidation Officer, Iiird, Bahraich and 3 Others