Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANHAIYA versus D.D.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kanhaiya v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 54041 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 5397 (7 March 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 40

                                                                                                                                  Group- B

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54041 of 2004

Kanhaiya                                ..................                Petitioner

                                        Versus

The Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Azamgarh and others...........................                     Respondents.

Hon'ble S.N.Srivastava,J.

This writ Petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2004 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by which some amendments were made in the chak of the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the materials on record. The averments made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that no notice or intimation was given to the petitioner, he was neither present nor engaged any counsel are not refuted in counter-affidavit.  There is no averment in the counter-affidavit that notices were personally served to petitioner. It is also not established from the record that petitioner or any counsel argued the case on his behalf.  Petitioner's non- appearance personally or through any counsel has not been denied  by contesting opposite parties.

In the circumstances, it is borne out from the record that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed without hearing the petitioner. In the facts of the case, without making any observation on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that impugned orders are liable to be quashed only on the ground that the order was ex parte and was passed without hearing the petitioner.

In view of the discussions made above, writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders dated 22.7.2004 and dated 3.11.2004 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation are quashed.  Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh shall hear and decide the case in accordance with law after considering the grievance of the parties by a speaking order within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

Dt.7.3.06

SU


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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