Anil Kumar and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024WRIB/401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed issuance of notice against respondent no. 3 and stayed the operation of impugned orders dated 30.11.2023 and 31.01.2019, listing the writ petition for further proceedings on 29.05.2024.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to respondent no. 3 within ten days; further steps directed; operation and effect of impugned orders dated 30.11.2023 and 31.01.2019 stayed pending return of the matter.

Anil Kumar and Others vs Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 401 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghaw Ram Upadhyay,Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Raghaw Ram Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

The petitioners have submitted that the dispute between the parties had been settled way back on 30.06.1980 when an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties and the present dispute pertains only to Plot Nos. 179 and 737/734.

¶8

It is stated that in the said compromise half share of plot no. 179 was granted to the petitioners as well as to respondents while plot nos. 737 was entirely given to the private respondents. It is further stated that subsequently, due to manipulation in the records plot no. 734 was replaced by plot no. 737 and plot no. 734 was also claimed by the respondents to the exclusion of the petitioners.

¶9

In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have filed an appeal in 1988 against the order of Consolidation Officer, which was allowed on 05.04.1990 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh adjudication. It is submitted that the matter in remand proceedings was kept pending before the Consolidation Officer for the last 8 years and was finally decided on 14.12.1998.

¶10

An appeal has been filed by the respondents before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer by means of order dated 30.11.2023. It is stated that the order of Consolidation Officer dated 14.12.2018, would show that all the disputed facts have been duly considered and decided by him and lastly it is submitted that one of the main plank raised by the petitioners is that Raj Behari who was Government servant was of unsound mind. It is stated that due to the fact that Raj Behari was of unsound mind he could not have transferred the property in

¶11

favour of predecessor in interest of the petitioners. It is submitted that even if it is shown that Raj Behari was of unsound mind, no proceedings have been initiated by the respondents for cancellation of the sale deed on the basis of which the disputed property has been transferred in favour of the petitioner and previously to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and therefore the order impugned is arbitrary and illegal.

¶12

In the light of above, the matter requires interference.

¶13

Issue notice to respondent no. 3. Let necessary steps be taken within next ten days.

¶14

List the case on 29.05.2024, alongwith service report.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, operation and effect of impugned orders dated 30.11.2023 and 31.01.2019 shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 A. Verma

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur 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

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Harish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Suraj Bali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sarik vs State of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Kirtivardhan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Lucknow and Others

Arshad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Lucknow