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


Hashim & Others v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - B No. - 43720 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15400 (12 September 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).


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

It appears that respondent nos. 3 to 10 filed a composite appeal against two orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 8.10.1988 and 6.1.2005. The appeal was dismissed on 2.9.2005 by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the ground that a composite appeal against two orders cannot be filed. Respondents then applied on 26.4.2007 for amendment in the memo of appeal for treating the appeal as being against the order dated 6.1.2005. An application dated 7.6.2007 was filed by the petitioner's before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. The application for amendment was allowed by order dated 27.6.2007 of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who fixed 3.7.2007 for hearing. Restoration filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Revision filed by him was also dismissed. The appeal of the respondents was dismissed on the ground that composite appeals could not have been filed. If a composite appeal was not permissible, the respondents could have been given opportunity of selecting as to which order they wanted to challenge in the appeal. The respondents have now prayed for treating the appeal as one against the order dated 6.1.2005. It was submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the respondents should have applied for recall of the order dismissing the appeal which they did not do. It however appears that in fact the appeal has been restored. It appears from the application of the petitioner dated 7.6.2007 that the appeal was pending on that date as the petitioner themselves have objected to the maintainability of the appeal. It appears thus that the appeal had been restored when the amendment was allowed. In consolidation proceedings title of the parties is finally decided and I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed.

Dt. 12.9.2007



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.