Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shiv Shankar v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Basti & Others - WRIT - B No. 65863 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20780 (8 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65863 of   2006

Shiv Shankar vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2004 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation allowing the substitution application as well as order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.6.2006 dismissing the revision challenging the said order. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purposes of the case are as under :

During pendency of the appeal filed by respondent nos. 3 & 4 an objection was filed by the petitioner to abate the proceeding on the ground that the same was filed against a dead person namely, Mohd. Rafi. Thereafter, the contesting respondents moved an application for substitution of heir of deceased. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 17.11.2004 allowed the same. Against which the petitioner went up in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 8.6.2006 dismissed the revision. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the substitution application was highly barred by time as such it was wrongly allowed and the proceeding ought to have been abated.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

The Settlement Officer Consolidation held that it was in the interest of justice  to decide the dispute between the parties on merits rather than on technicalities and allowed the substitution application. Confirming the same findings, the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision.

I find no illegality in the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation in allowing the substitution application. It is always in the interest of justice to adjudicate the dispute between the parties on merits rather than on technicalities.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

The petition is dismissed in limine.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.