Dismissed

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024WRIB/993/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged an ex-parte order for lack of service of notice. Court held remedy lies in Section 209 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Petition disposed leaving application for setting aside open.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners directed to file application to set aside ex-parte order before the concerned authority.

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others vs Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68478

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 993 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vishnu Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Fareed Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Fareed Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the opp. party No. 1/State.

¶7

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged validity of an ex-parte judgment and order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, in Case No. 179 of 2022, Kripa Shanker & ors. v. State, under Section 48(3), U.P. Consolidation of Hodings Act, 1953.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the aforsaid order has been passed without service of notice of revision on the petitioners, therefore, the order is not sustainable.

¶9

A perusal of the order dated 25.311.2022 indicates that no satisfaction has been recorded by the authority concerned/Dy. Director of Consolidation regarding service of notice of the revision on the opp. parties. Proviso to Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides that any party aggrieved by an order passed ex parte , may move an application for setting aside such order.

¶10

As the order under challenge is an ex parte order, the petitioners have a statutory remedy under the provisio appended to Section 209 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 of filing an application for setting aside the order.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the

¶12

authority concerned, which shall be decided in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶13

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶14

Order Date :- 3.10.2024 A.Nigam

¶15

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

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

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

Ram Khelavan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Abdul Kadir Alias Kadir Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) District Gonda and 8 Others

Shiv Nath and 2 Others Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Another

Ram Prakash Giri Vs Rakesh Giri and 7 Others

Santram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Vishnu Kumar and 6 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and 2 Others