The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a revisional order upholding an amendment for impleading legal heirs in land consolidation proceedings. The Court held that beyond-limitation amendments do not warrant certiorari as strict CPC rules apply with laxity in such proceedings.
The writ petition was dismissed being devoid of merit; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPMS No. 359 of 2014 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. None appears for the parties. The order impugned in this case is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar in Revision No. 242 / 2012 -13 whereby he did not interfere with the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Roorkee, Haridwar, who allowed the application for amendment for impleadment of L.R. of the respondents filed in Appeal No. 174, which was preferred against the order dated 05.08.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Present petitioner filed an objection against the amendment application stating therein that late Shri Devichand died in the year 2009 and amendment application is filed on 03.12.2010 without filing delay condonation application and therefore, proposed amendments for substitution of the legal heirs of late Shri Devichand is stated to be beyond limitation. As there are two concurrent findings of the courts below in this case; the strict and rigid provisions of CPC are not applicable in its full force to the Consolidation Proceedings and even Section 38 of the Uttarakhand Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that the Consolidation Authorities have all such powers and rights, as are vested in a Civil Court, regarding enforcement of attendance of witnesses, examination of witnesses etc.; compelling anyone for the production of any document;andpunishingof any personguilty |
| of contempt, so in our considered opinion, by allowing the substitution application beyond the prescribed period of limitation will not make it liable to be interfered in proceedings of writ of Certiorari. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties, as per Rules. |
|---|
(S.K. Mishra, J.) 16.11.2021 SKS |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether allowing amendment of application for impleadment beyond the limitation period in land consolidation proceedings attracts writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Whether strict procedural bars under CPC apply to proceedings under the Uttarakhand Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Respondent(s)
Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
