Gafoor Ali Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gafoor Ali Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda to consider and decide the pending recall application dated 01.02.2025 and the accompanying stay application, most expeditiously as per law, after affording full opportunity of hearing, without unnecessary adjournment, preferably within three months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment; notice to private respondents dispensed with; petitioner permitted to implead the necessary opposite party.

Issue for consideration

Whether opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda should be directed (mandamus) to decide the petitioner's pending recall application dated 01/02/2025, along with the accompanying stay application, against the order dated 07/09/2024 passed in case no. 350/2013-14 State versus Dwarika. +1 more

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda to consider and decide both the pending application(s) in issue (the recall application dated 01.02.2025 and the accompanying stay application referred in the prayer clauses) most expeditiously, as per law, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment.

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly clarified that it has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned is free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private respondent(s) is dispensed with.ratio¶8
As the proper/necessary opposite party had inadvertently not been arrayed in the memo of petition (with no objection from the learned State Counsel), the petitioner is permitted to implead the necessary opposite party during the course of the day.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gafoor Ali v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and 4 Others - WRIT-B No. 430 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:28203; Saurabh Lavania, J.; Order Date 14.5.2025). Petitioner sought (i) mandamus to opposite party no.1 to decide his pending recall application dated 01/02/2025 - filed alleging that the order dated 07/09/2024 passed in case no. 350/2013-14 State versus Dwarika (Annexure No.1) is an ex-parte order - along with the accompanying stay application, and (ii) mandamus restraining opposite party no.2 from acting and delivering possession of the land on the basis of the order dated 07/09/2024. Petition DISPOSED OF with a direction to opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda to consider and decide both pending applications most expeditiously, as per law, after affording full opportunity of hearing, without unnecessary adjournment, preferably within three months from the next date fixed before it, absent legal impediment. The Court expressly did not examine merits; the Authority is free to decide strictly in accordance with law. Context: possession due for delivery by officials under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 (Tej Pratap Singh and Smt. Surajkali), with apprehended hardship and mental agony to the petitioner. Notice to private respondents dispensed with; petitioner permitted to implead the inadvertently omitted opposite party. No judicial precedent cited.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28203

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 430 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gafoor Ali Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saima Khan,Priya Bharti,Sadhna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard Ms. Saima Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Verma, learned State Counsel.

At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that inadvertently the proper necessary opposite party could not be arrayed in the memo of petition and as such she may be permitted to implead the proper opposite party.

Learned State Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to implead the necessary opposite party during the course of the day.

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

"1. To issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no.1 to decide the recall application dated 01/02/2025 along with stay application moved by the petitioner against order dated 07/09/2024 passed in case no. 350/2013-14 State versus Dwarika. (Annexure No.1).

2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the opposite party no.2 to act and deliver the possession of the land on the basis of order dated 07/09/2024."

Upon due consideration of the facts of the case including that pending application dated 01.02.2025 for recall of order dated 07.09.2024 has been filed alleging therein that the order dated 07.09.2024 is an ex-parte order as also that possession would be delivered by the officials under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953') to the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 namely Tej Pratap Singh and Smt. Surajkali and if possession is delivered then in that eventuality the petitioner would suffer great hardship and mental agony, the present petition is disposed of with direction to opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda, to consider and decide both the pending application(s) in issue, referred in the prayer clause, most expeditiously, as per law, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed before it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Jyoti/-

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench