Dismissed

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar v. Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and 8 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024WRIB/605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of a transfer application by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was dismissed only on procedural grounds (case number and authority not disclosed) and not on merits. The High Court declined interference and dismissed the petition, permitting a fresh transfer application with necessary details to be considered on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar vs… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53422

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 605 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Tushar, Through His Attorney Sarvesh Kumar Respondent :- Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Niwas Pathak,Raghaw Ram Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Prakash Singh,Satyendra Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Jay Prakash Singh learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.7 and Sri Satyendra Kumar Tiwari learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos.6 and 7.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby the transfer application moved by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.5 is working under the influence of the privaterespondents, who had passed an interim order illegally on the application preferred by them behind the back of the petitioner and has also made overwriting over the order-sheets.

¶9

Against the aforesaid, the petitioner moved an application for transfer of the case in the Court of SOC, who rejected the said transfer application by means of the impugned order.

¶10

It is urged that the Court below while rejecting the transfer application has not even considered the grounds as mentioned by the petitioner in his application for seeking transfer and only on the basis of the procedural deficiency, the said application was rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the private respondents while opposing the aforesaid submissions stated that the transfer application was rejected on technical ground since the petitioner had not indicated the case number of which transfer was sought nor he could indicate under what authority he had filed the transfer application and in such circumstances the said order cannot be said to be faulty. In any case, if the petitioner has a genuine cause, he can always move a fresh petition for transfer by

¶12

disclosing the necessary details and his authority to file it, if that is so required.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the application for transfer was rejected only on two grounds that he had not mentioned the case number of which the transfer was sought and could not indicate under what authority the transfer application was moved and not on merits.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find this petition to be a fit case to interfere. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner who may move an appropriate application before the court concerned for transfer which needless to say shall be considered on its own merit by the court concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Harshita

¶16

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

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar v. Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tushar, through his Attorney Sarvesh Kumar v. Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sachchidanand and Another Vs Girja Sonkar and Others

Jaiwanti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Another

Ram Sagar Yadav vs Co-Operative Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Its Registrar and 6 Others

Lallu Gupta @ Ravi Chand Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Abdul Rasheed @ Rashid Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Teh Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 3 Others