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


Bam Bahadur & Others v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 21105 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 2776 (7 February 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).


Hon. S.N. Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd March, 2004.

From the materials on record, it transpires that Plot No. 159/43, situated in Village Kohra Sultanpur, District Jaunpur.  In the Basic year Jokhan, Son of Suraju was recorded.  Contesting Opp. party no.3-Dhanraj and Manraj-father of contesting Opp. party nos. 4 to 11 filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.  By the order dated 12th April, 2001, Consolidation Officer rejected objection and declared petitioners as tenureholder of the land in dispute on the ground that their claim appears to be without any contest.  Against this order contesting Opp. parties filed an Application to recall supported by an application for condonation of delay.  That Application was allowed by the order dated 3rd March, 2004 and the matter was directed to be heard on merits.  Against aforesaid order a revision was preferred by the petitioner which was also dismissed on the ground that the impugned order is an interlocutory order.

Both the learned counsel for the parties made a number of arguments on merits.  But I refrain from making any observation on merits of the case as by the impugned order matter has been directed to be considered on merits and both the parties have been given opportunity to plead their respective cases, lead evidence and of hearing.  

Considering the materials on record, I am fully satisfied that the delay was rightly condoned by the Consolidation Officer.  The order passed by the Consolidation Officer makes it clear that the claim of the petitioners was allowed without any contest.  Cogent reasons have been recorded for condonation of delay and for recalling order.  There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer in the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2004 and the Revision of petitioners was also rightly dismissed.

In view of the above, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.  However, as matter is pending before Consolidation Officer since long, I direct Consolidation Officer to decide the case in accordance with law by a reasoned order after giving opportunity to complete pleadings, adducing evidence and of hearing to the parties within a period of six months' from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.




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.