A one-page order staying the operation of the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation pending filing of counter affidavits by respondents.
Stay granted on the operation of the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation until the next date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 642 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chauhan And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Shankar,Triveni Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla,Udai Shankar Chauhan
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
"1. Heard Mr. Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Udai Shankar Chauhan, learned counsel for the contesting respondent nos.4 & 5 and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an objection under Section 9 B (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 filed by the petitioners' father, which was registered as Case No.55 was finally decided vide order dated 19.2.2009 by which the plot no.2909/4 has been put outside the consolidation. He next submitted that the order dated 19.2.2009 has attained finality, as such, the same cannot be set aside in revision filed by the petitioners' father against the allotment order passed in chak proceedings. Не next submitted that the impugned order dated 4.12.2023 by which the order dated 19.2.2009 has been set aside is wholly illegal, as such, the part of the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents nos.4 & 5 submitted that the order dated 19.2.2009 has not attained finality. He further submitted that the appeal filed at the instance of the contesting respondent against the order dated 19.2.2009 is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if appeal filed by contesting respondents is pending then Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to pass the orders setting aside the order dated 19.2.2009 passed by Consolidation Officerunder Section 9 B (2) of U.P.C.H. Act.
5. Matter requires consideration.
6. Mr. Udai Shankar Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 & 5 is granted one week time to file affidavit bringing on record the proof of filing of appeal against the order dated 19.2.2009 passed in Case No.55, under Section 9B (2) of U.P.C.H. Act.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024 VR
Digitally signed by :- VIBHA RATAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dated 19.2.2009 attained finality and could not be set aside in revision?
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation had jurisdiction to set aside the order while an appeal was pending?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Chauhan And 3 Others
Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
