Dismissed¶5

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2025WRIB/1132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chak allotment dispute; Gata No. 77 and Gata No. 98; boring of petitioner; Village Bahadurnagar, Pargana Pandarwa, Tehsil Sahabad, District Hardoi; Consolidation of Holdings Act proceedings concluded; dispute resolved at D.D.C. stage; judgment attained finality; revision rejected by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 14.08.2025; withdrawal of writ petition; liberty to assail impugned order at subsequent stage; Writ-B No. 1132 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Alok Mathur, J.; dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal as withdrawn of the writ petition, coupled with liberty to the petitioners to assail the impugned order at a subsequent stage if so advised. ¶5

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 1132 of 2025

¶3

Vinod Kumar And 3 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jai Prakash Yadav, Ram Achal Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

Present dispute pertains to allotment of chak in Village - Bahadurnagar, Pargana - Pandarwa, Tehsil - Sahabad, District - Hardoi. Grievance of petitioners was with regard to allotment of entire chak situated at Gata No. 77 in favour of the petitioner alongwith Gata No. 98 on which boring of petitioner is existing. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering entire facts of the case, has declined to interfere in the said matter on account of the fact that with regard to chak situated over Gata No. 77, proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act have already been concluded and dispute has been resolved at the stage of D.D.C. in another matter and consequently, D.D.C. in the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, while rejecting the revision of the petitioners has stated that he can not interfere in the judgment which has attained finality.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition and seeks liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application with regard to the dispute which has already been settled by the D.D.C.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the above prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

WRIB No. 1132 of 2025

¶14

¶15

Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to assail the impugned order, in case he is so advised, at subsequent stage.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

December 3, 2025

A. Verma

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

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and 3 Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi 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

Khalil Ahmad @ Haji Khalil Ahmad vs U.P. Waqfs Tribunal Thru. Registrar Lucknow U.P. and others

Balakram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenie Deptt., Lko. and Others

Bansh Bahadur Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Others

Rakesh Kumar Maurya and Others Vs Consolidation Officer, Lakhimpur Ist, Camp Gola, Kheri and Others

Shyam Mohan Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko and Others

Lalman Singh @ Lalmani Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Revenue, Lko. and Others