Dismissed

Ram Feran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2024WRIB/592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of consolidation orders concerning an omission in revenue records after over 50 years. Counsel argued consolidation authorities were functus officio post Section 52 notification and remedy lay under the U.P. Revenue Code. Petition was withdrawn and dismissed without entering merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to avail any remedy available under law.

Ram Feran vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41104

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 592 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Feran

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Shravasti And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Ram Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shiv Ram Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shravasti in Revision No. 1333/2022 (Vijay Kumar vs. State of U.P.), under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, for quashing the order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 in case no. 0023/2021 under Section 42K of the Act, 1953 and also for quashing the order dated 25.04.1964 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Ikauna, District Shravasti.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner moved an application for correction in the revenue records by entering the name of the petitioner therein, which was by mistake left out to be recorded. The application was moved after more than 50 years.

¶10

It is further submitted that after the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953) , the Consolidation authorities have become functus officio and they have no power or jurisdiction to entertain the case whereas if any dispute is raised after the notification under Section 52 of the Act, 1952, the only remedy under which the dispute can be entertained is under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with Section 27 (3) of the Act, 1953.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail the remedy under Section 38 of the Code, 2006 read with Section 27 (3) of the the Act, 1953.

¶12

As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner is always at liberty to avail any remedy, if any, available under the law.

¶13

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 Nitesh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Feran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Feran v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Bhagwan Dei Vs Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow and Ors.

Sarita Gautam Vs Naib Tehsildar, Thesil Purwa, Distt. Unnao and Others

Mansha Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Others

Smt. Sarla Devi Mishra @ Sarla Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. for Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Dinesh Kumar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 46 Others

Sarvjeet Singh and Others Vs State of the U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others