Disposed¶13

Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi and Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2025A227/369/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 expedite petition, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Jaspreet Singh J., 2025:AHC-LKO:5853, decided 29.01.2025; direction to Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi to decide pending Appeal No.33/2024 under Section 11(1), U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 expeditiously; delay in disposal of consolidation appeal; full opportunity of hearing; no unnecessary adjournments; merits not examined; counsel Prashant Vikram Singh for petitioner, C.S.C. for respondents; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to decide the pending Appeal No.33/2024 most expeditiously, with full opportunity of hearing to the parties and without unnecessary adjournments; the petition itself was disposed of without examining merits. ¶13

Ajay Kumar Srivastava Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent No.1 (Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi) to decide the pending Appeal No.33/2024 expeditiously.

¶8

Court's answer

The Court directed respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending Appeal No.33/2024 most expeditiously.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In deciding the appeal, full opportunity of hearing is to be afforded to the parties, but no unnecessary adjournment is to be granted to either party.

¶11

Key takeaways

The Court made clear that it had not examined the case of either party on merits, and the court concerned was to consider and decide the petitioner's appeal strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 8); Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:5853; Matters Under Article 227 No. 369 of 2025; Order Date 29.1.2025. Petitioner Ajay Kumar Srivastava sought expeditious disposal of Appeal No.33/2024 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 pending before respondent No.1, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi, noting that many dates had been fixed without decision. The office of the Chief Standing Counsel accepted notice for respondent No.1 and filed written instructions; notice to private-respondents No.2 to 12 was dispensed with; learned standing counsel had no objection to an expedite order. The Court held that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending and directed respondent No.1 to consider and decide Appeal No.33/2024 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing but without granting unnecessary adjournments. The Court expressly did not examine the merits of either party's case and required the appeal to be decided strictly in accordance with law. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5853

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 369 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, who has also provided a copy of the written instructions, which are taken on record.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.2 to 12 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Appeal No.33/2024, under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 pending before the respondent No.1.

¶9

It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the aforesaid appeal has not yet been decided.

¶10

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the pending Appeal No.33/2024 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably as expeditiously as possible.

¶12

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Court concerned shall consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Rakesh/-

¶15

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

Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Srivastava v. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Amethi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Munera Devi Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lko. and Others

Santosh Kumar Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Musafirkhana, Amethi and Another

Krishna Kant Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others

Krishna Kumar Dubey Vs Up Sanchalak Chakbandi, Ayodhya and Others

Ghufran Ahmad @ Gufran and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue), Lko. and Others

Mohd. Umar Diedthru Brother Baniya Amin Vs the Dy.Dir.of Consolidation Distt.Bahraich/Shravast and Ors.