Dismissed

Vijay Pal v. Gaon Sabha Delana, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee

Uttarakhand HC5 Jul 2022WPMS/817/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the condonation of delay by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in allowing a Gram Sabha's revision. The court held that since the revision remains pending on merits and the delay was properly condoned, no interference is warranted. Liberty is granted to raise contentions before the Revisional Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to raise contentions before the Revisional Court and expectation for speedy disposal of the revision.

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. 817 of 2008
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.

Mr.
Tapan
Singh,
Advocate
for
the
petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for the
respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated
28.03.2018
passed
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation/ Additional Collector, Haridwar,
whereby delay of 10 months 5 days in filing the
revision
by
Gram
Sabha
through
District
Government
Counsel
(Revenue),
has
been
condoned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that delay ought not to have been condoned.
I have gone through the impugned order
passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has
given valid reasons for condoning the delay and
has held that the revision deserves to be decided
on merits.
The order impugned in the revision was
passed on 22.03.2005. According to the
revisionist, he learnt about the said order only
on 20.01.2006 and after obtaining certified copy
of the impugned order, revision was filed on
27.01.2006.

Law is settled that a liberal approach
should be adopted by Courts while considering
the delay condonation application. Thus, there
is no scope for interference.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by Deputy
Director of Consolidation, as according to him,
after having decided the Revision No. 645 of
2005, filed by Ompal and others, Revisional
Court could not have entertained second revision
for the self-same land, though by a different
party. Various other issues have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the revision filed by Gram Sabha is
yet to be decided on merits, therefore, this Court
is not inclined to go into the issues raised by
petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed
of with liberty to petitioner to raise all
contentions before the Revisional Court,
including maintainability of second revision. Since the revision was filed by Gram Sabha
in 2006, therefore, this Court hopes and expects
that learned Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the revision, as early as possible, preferably, within nine months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 05.07.2022 Navin

Law is settled that a liberal approach

should be adopted by Courts while considering

the delay condonation application. Thus, there

is no scope for interference.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by Deputy

Director of Consolidation, as according to him,

after having decided the Revision No. 645 of

2005, filed by Ompal and others, Revisional

Court could not have entertained second revision

for the self-same land, though by a different

party. Various other issues have been raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Since the revision filed by Gram Sabha is

yet to be decided on merits, therefore, this Court

is not inclined to go into the issues raised by

petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed

of
with
liberty
to
petitioner
to
raise
all

contentions
before
the
Revisional
Court,

including maintainability of second revision.
Since the revision was filed by Gram Sabha

in 2006, therefore, this Court hopes and expects

that learned Deputy Director of Consolidation
shall decide the revision, as early as possible,
preferably, within nine months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.

( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
05.07.2022
Navin

Vijay Pal v. Gaon Sabha Delana, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pal v. Gaon Sabha Delana, Pargana Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Dewari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madhu Menka Vs Rupa Saini

Luxmi Prasad Vs State of U P through Secretary

Sachin Agarwal Vs Bhramanand

Sarat Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anupam Kumar Saini Vs Priya Saini