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


Sakeel Ahmad v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - B No. - 51648 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16762 (23 October 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. 05


Sakeel Ahmad


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner.

Vide order dated 27.10.1986 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, the area of Plot No. 1506, 1510, 2001, 2017, 2021 and 1473 was reduced. Said order was challenged by petitioner in appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 28.6.1988 allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to Consolidation Officer with direction to decide the dispute afresh after getting measurement done and fixed 16.7.1988 for appearance of the parties before Consolidation Officer. In pursuance to the direction contained in the remand order, Consolidation Officer called for a measurement report. Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted report dated 23.5.1991 to the effect that since delivery of possession has been taken place in the village on account of which actual measurement on the spot cannot be made and the report was submitted on the basis of 'shajare'. No objection to the said report was filed. Proceedings came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 4.9.1991 and the order dated 27.10.1986 was maintained. After four years petitioner moved application dated 5.10.1991 to recall the said order which came to be dismissed in default on 11.6.1992. Petitioner again moved application dated 22.1.2003 to recall order dated 11.6.1992. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.2.2003 dismissed the said application as barred by time. Petitioner challenged the orders dated 24.2.2003 and 11.6.1992 in appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 19.5.2004 dismissed the same. Revision filed by petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2006. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 4.9.1991 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing or to produce evidence. It has further been urged that recall application filed by petitioner has also wrongly and illegally been dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

All the three Courts have categorically recorded a finding that petitioner was given ample opportunity to file objection to the report of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 23.5.1991 but he had neither filed any objection nor produced any evidence in support of his case and the proceedings were dismissed on 4.9.1991 for want of prosecution. Recall application filed by petitioner was dismissed in default on 11.6.1992. Petitioner again filed an application to recall the said order after about 11 years. Consolidation Officer dismissed the said application as barred by time in absence of any sufficient cause being shown by petitioner in moving the application with such an inordinate delay.

Since the petitioner inspite of opportunities failed to file any objection to the report submitted by Assistant Consolidation Officer nor he produced any evidence in support of his case as such the order dated 27.10.1986 was rightly affirmed by Consolidation Officer. Further petitioner failed to give any explanation for filing the recall application after about 11 years and in absence of any reasonable explanation for filing the recall application with such an inordinate delay, said application has rightly been dismissed and I find no illegality in the same.

In view of above, there is no scope for interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.




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.