Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNJ BEHARI versus D.D.C.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kunj Behari v. D.D.C.& Others - WRIT - B No. 11784 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 10032 (24 May 2007)

 

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

Hon. Janardan Sahai,J

The petitioner field objections before the Consolidation Officer. The same were dismissed in default by the order dated 3.2.83 of the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner filed restoration application, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.10.83. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Asstt. Settlement Officer Consolidation, who dismissed it on 7.11.84 and the revision against that order has been dismissed by the District Dy.Director of Consolidation by the order dated 21.5.85.

I have heard Sri S.S.Shukla counsel for the petitioner  and Sri V.K.Singh counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

The finding is that there was a delay of about 7 months in filing of the restoration application and the delay was not sufficiently explained. The copy of the restoration application has been annexed along with the writ petition and the ground given by the petitioner was that he was  ill and therefore could not attend the court on 3.2.83 and it was on recovery that he filed the restoration application. It is stated in para 16 of the writ petition that this affidavit  of the petitioner was unrebutted.

A counter affidavit has been filed in which the averment that the affidavit of the petitioner was unrebutted has not been denied. Moreover the dispute appears to be a title dispute. Decision in a consolidation case assumes  finality and decides the title for all times to come. It has therefore been held by this court that a liberal view has to be adopted in such matters.. In the circumstances as cause of absence being illness (Gout) the restoration application could have been allowed and the opposite party could have been compensated by cost. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 13.10.83,  Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dated 7.11.84 and of the District Dy.Director of Consolidation, dated 21.5.85 are set aside. The Consolidation Officer shall decide the case afresh on merits. The cost of Rs.1500/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the Gaon Sabha respondents no.4 to be deposited in the consolidated Gaon Sabha fund within three months from today. In case the costs are not paid within the time mentioned above the writ petition shall stand dismissed.

Dt: 24.5.07sm

wp11784/85

Hon. Janardan Sahai,J

The petitioner field objections before the Consolidation Officer. The same were dismissed in default by the order dated 3.2.83 of the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner filed restoration application, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.10.83. Against that order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Asstt.  Settlement Officer Consolidation, who dismissed it on 7.11.84 and the revision against that order has been dismissed by the District Dy. Director of Consolidation by the order dated 21.5.85.

I have heard Sri S.S.Shukla counsel for the petitioner  and Sri V.K.Singh counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

The finding is that delay of about 7 months in filing of the restoration application was not sufficiently explained. The copy of the restoration application has been annexed along with the writ petition and the ground given by the petitioner was that he was  ill and therefore could not attend the court on 3.2.83 and it was on recovery that he filed the restoration application. It is stated in para 16 of the writ petition that this affidavit  of the petitioner was unrebutted.

Moreover the dispute appears to be a title dispute. Decision in a consolidation case assumes  finality and decides the title for all times to come. It has therefore been held by this court that a liberal view has to be adopted in such matters.. In the circumstances as cause of absence being illness (Gout) the restoration application ought to have been allowed and the opposite party could have been compensated by cost. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 13.10.83, Asstt. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dated 7.11.84 and of the District Dy. Director of Consolidation, dated 21.5.85 are set aside. The Consolidation Officer shall decide the case afresh on merits. The cost of Rs.1500/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the Gaon Sabha respondent no.4 to be deposited in the consolidated Gaon Sabha fund within three months from today. In case the costs are not paid within the time mentioned above the writ petition shall stand dismissed.

Dt: 24.5.07sm

wp11783/85


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.