Dismissed

Mehandi Hashan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024WRIB/86/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner assailed an order setting aside entries in CH Form-45 found to be fraudulent by the Revisional Authority. The High Court dismissed the writ petition because the petitioner failed to place the underlying appealed orders on record despite being granted time to do so.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed for failure to place necessary documents on record.

Mehandi Hashan vs Deputy Director of Consolidation… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11571

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 86 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mehandi Hashan Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And Another

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarjoo Ram,Aklavya,Mamta Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ambika Prasad Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh whereby in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

¶9

The entries made in CH Form-45 relating to Khata No. 217 and 218 relating dated 03.12.1986 and 08.04.1986 is set aside and the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been made part of the said order.

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in possession of the land in question and he had preferred two appeals bearing No. 2347 and 2348 wherein an order has been passed in his favour dated 03.02.1986 and 08.04.1986.

¶11

It is at a later stage that the petitioner had moved an application under Rule 109 to correct the entries. As per the entry made in CH Form-45 and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that a reference was made by the Consolidation Officer. The Revisional Authority had held an inquiry and it revealed that the entries dated 03.02.1986 and 08.04.1986 were fraudulent. This order is under challenged before this Court and the Court had also required the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring on record the order dated 03.02.1986 and 08.04.1986.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been able to get hold of the said order.

¶13

Be that as it may, the said two orders had not been seen the light of the day and it is only on the basis of the entries that the

¶14

petitioner had moved the application upon which the reference was made.

¶15

Upon an inquiry held by the Competent Court i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, the entries were found to be fraudulent which is purely a question of fact. In absence of any order, mere entry is not going to confer any right despite time having been given to the petitioner to bring the same on record, the same could not be placed.

¶16

Another aspect that needs to be seen is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is dated 03.10.1986 and the petitioner lastly on the date of the order was very well aware on the ground upon which his reference has been turned down and the instant petition was filed on 12th January, 2024 almost after three weeks yet no effort could be made to bring the orders on record despite time having been granted by this Court on 25.01.2024, yet, the same is not brought on record.

¶17

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for the aforesaid reason and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 5.2.2024 Asheesh

¶19

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

Mehandi Hashan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehandi Hashan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ranno Devi Vs Krishna Dev and 7 Others

Rajeswari Devi Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Smt. Shashi Dixit Vs Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 22, Lko. and 2 Others

Premchand Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Manish Kumar and 2 Others Vs the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North Lko. and 10 Others

Sarafraji Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others