Disposed

Ziaularefeen and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024WRIB/1507/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed reconstruction of missing record for a pending Rule 109-A application under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, granting three weeks for representation and ordering disposal within five months. Court also restrained creation of third-party rights pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to reconstruct missing record and decide pending Rule 109-A application within five months; no third-party rights to be created.

Ziaularefeen and 2 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114811

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1507 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ziaularefeen And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kumar Anish,Rita Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jamil Ahamad Azmi

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶6

Instant writ petition has been filed beseeching a direction for expeditious disposal of Case No.123/4/59, under Rule 109 of U.P.C.H. Rules in pursuance of the remand order dated 23.07.1999 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

It is submitted that proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was finally culminated by order dated 17.11.1965 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.1357. Writ Petition filed against the order dated 17.11.1965 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated February 11, 1971. Special Appeal against the order dated February 11, 1971 has been dismissed as well vide order dated 21.11.1978. For giving effect to the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities in the land revenue record, an application under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules has been filed. The aforesaid application under Rule 109-A was allowed by Consolidation Officer which has been affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. On revision being filed on behalf of the respondents, Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 23.07.1999, has remitted the matter before the Consolidation Officer, Moradabad to decide the matter afresh. Since then, original application under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules is pending consideration.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the instructions received from the Consolidation Officer, Amroha, has contended that the record of Rule 109-A is missing since the order dated 23.07.1999 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Despite sincere effort, whereabouts of the record is not traceable. It is further contended that it can be ascertained from the Consolidation Officer, Moradabad before whom matter was remitted in pursuance of the order dated 23.07.1999. It is further contended that unless the record relating to the matter is reconstructed, same cannot be decided in pursuance of the order dated 23.07.1999

¶9

passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶10

In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the merits of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, with a direction that present petitioners are at liberty to move a detailed representation before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, District- Amroha with respect to their grievance as averred in the instant writ petition, within a period of three weeks from today along with the certified copy of order of the date and self-attested copy of the instant writ petition. After receiving the said representation, as directed above, learned District Deputy Director of Consolidation, District- Amroha shall take appropriate steps for reconstruction of missing record after due inquiry as required under the law and, after reconstruction of record as early as possible, issue a direction to the Consolidation Officer concerned (Amroha) to decide the proceeding under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of five months from the date of direction issued by him.

¶11

However, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case wherein petitioners are running from pillar to post since 1972 to get the land revenue record corrected in pursuance of the order passed by the Consolidation Courts, it would be appropriate to issue a direction that no third party right shall be created over the property in question till the final disposal of the application under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Act, as directed above.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Rama Kant

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAMAKANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ziaularefeen and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ziaularefeen and 2 Others v. State of Up and 3 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

Shashi Bala Saxena vs Shri Avinash Kumar D M

Pankaj Jindal vs Sri Digamber Singh Bisth , Pressently Posted as Chief Manager

Sanjai Kumar vs Smt Shradha Yadav and Another

Raj Roshan and 4 Others vs Sri Ganesh Kanoujia

Ambedkar Gram Udyog Seva Samiti vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Subhash Chandra vs State of U.P and 6 Others