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


Satya Narain v. Shiv Pujan - WRIT - B No. - 6333 of 1974 [2007] RD-AH 15826 (20 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).


Court No.5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6333 of 1974

Satya Narain and another .......... Petitioner


Sheo Pujan and others ................ Respondents

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

Heard Sri Rajesh Ji Verma counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming co-tenancy rights in respect of several khatas. The plots in dispute have been given at the foot of the objections. There was some delay in filing of the objections and as such an application to condone the delay was filed by the petitioners. In the application it is stated that the petitioners had no knowledge about the incorrect entries in the extracts prepared in the consolidation proceedings and they being in possession did not have any occasion to file objections and they came to know about the incorrect entries on 19.9.1973 after the respondents filed objections. The Consolidation Officer by cryptic order dated 2.2.1974 has dismissed the application for condoning the delay on the ground that there was litigation going on between the petitioners and the respondents and they had therefore knowledge about the consolidation proceedings. A revision was filed by the petitioners against the order of the Consolidation Officer, which was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both the orders have been challenged in this writ petition.

It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that wrong entries have been made in the extract of the consolidation proceedings were not in their knowledge has not been appreciated and the Consolidation Officer has erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioners had knowledge of the consolidation proceedings generally. The grievance of the petitioners is that explanation for the delay has not been considered either by the Consolidation Officer or by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is also contended that from the order of the Consolidation Officer it does not appear that any objections were filed to the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act It is true that neither the order of the Consolidation Officer nor that of the Deputy Director Consolidation discloses that any objections were filed by the respondents to the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act filed by the petitioners.

There is also some merit in the contention of the petitioners' counsel that the case of the petitioners that they had no knowledge about the wrong extract has not been considered. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay of less than an year in filing of the objections and large number of plots are involved in the case and in view of the fact that the consolidation proceedings finally determine the right of the parties liberal approach was required to be adopted in the matter. He relied upon a decision of the Apex court in Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Sao & Ors [JT 2002 (2) SC 349] Courts should consider the application for condoning the delay in consolidation proceedings with the approach to advance substantial justice. In the facts it appears to be appropriate that the application for condonation of delay be considered afresh In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the consolidation Officer dated 2.2.1974 and that of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.7.1974 are set aside and the case is sent back to the Consolidation Officer for consideration of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh.

Dt. 20.9.2007



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.