Dismissed

Satya Dev Pathak v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Allahabad HC31 May 2024WRIB/619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged a date in a private respondent's affidavit had been overwritten and sought fresh adjudication before consolidation authorities. After the S.O.C. remitted the matter afresh, the D.D.C. restored the Consolidation Officer's original rejection, finding no substantiating material for tampering. The writ petition challenging the D.D.C.'s order was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Satya Dev Pathak vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52996

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 619 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Satya Dev Pathak Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Afzal Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Vishal Tripathi,Rama Kant Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Pandey learned Standing counsel for the State. Sri Rama Kant Dixit learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.3 whereas Sri Ram Vishal Tripathi learned counsel for the private respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.

¶7

Under challenge is the order passed by the D.D.C dated 15.03.2024 whereby the revision preferred by the private respondent no.3 was allowed and the order passed by the S.O.C dated 06.11.2023 has been set aside restoring the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 23.06.2023.

¶8

In order to put the controversy in a perspective, it is case of the petitioner that the private respondent no.3 had filed his affidavit wherein the date of death of Ram Narendra was indicated as 16.09.2019, however, by overwriting that said date was recorded as 19.06.2019. Noticing the aforesaid discrepancy, the petitioner had filed an application before the Consolidation Officer on 01.09.2021 and the same came to be considered and rejected by means of the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Consolidation Officer. While rejecting the said application, it was noticed that there was no substantiating material brought on record by the petitioner to establish that the date has been overwritten and changed.

¶9

The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the S.O.C who after noticing the rival contentions allowed the appeal of the petitioner by means of the order dated 06.11.2023 and held that since the order passed by the Consolidation Officer did not delve into the details and has rejected the application in a cursory manner hence the matter was remitted to be decided afresh.

¶10

The private respondent no.3 being aggrieved against the appellate order dated 6.11.2023 preferred a revision which has

¶11

been allowed by means of the order dated 15.03.2024 affirming the order passed by the Consolidation Officer after setting aside the order of the S.O.C.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the over writing done in the affidavit changing the date gives a new complexion to the controversy and it was not open for the private respondent to have corrected the date in the affidavit which amounts to tampering with the records.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the impugned order the fact which could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that the certified copy of an affidavit clearly indicated the date as 16.09.2019, even the affidavit available in the file of this Court indicate as such. It appears that the copy which was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner, before the consolidation authorities, may have had a typographical error. It is considering the aforesaid and recording that no substantial material could be placed by the petitioner, the revision of the private respondent has been allowed also noticing that this was a ruse to delay the proceedings.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid and the nature of the order which has been passed and finding which has been recorded that the petitioner could not substantiate the aforesaid allegation of overwriting, accordingly, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with such an order in exercise of acquitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Harshita

¶17

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

Satya Dev Pathak v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satya Dev Pathak v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Banwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Indura Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sh. Lalit Kumar Tanwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development,Lko. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Maya Devi vs Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Board of Revenue, Lko. and Others

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

Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.