Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LOKENDRA SINGH versus D.D.C & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lokendra Singh v. D.D.C & Others - WRIT - B No. - 56502 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17956 (16 November 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No.5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56502 of 2007

Lokendra Singh .......... Petitioner.

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation

Jhansi and others ........... Respondents.

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Undisputed facts relevant for the purposes of the case are as under :

Against the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation in an appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act'), respondent nos. 2 to 7 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Vide order dated 7.2.2006 the said revision was dismissed on a technical ground that memo of revision and vakalatnama was not signed. Thereafter, respondent nos. 2 to 7 filed another revision. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the revision was barred by time. Deputy Director or Consolidation vide order dated 14.8.2007 held that the delay was liable to be condoned. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court.

Against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, revision filed on 30.12.2004 was well within time. However, on account of technical ground that memo of revision and vakalatnama was not signed by the revisionists it was dismissed on 7.2.2006. The second revision was filed by the respondents on 14.2.2006. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any delay in filing the second revision as the same was filed within seven days of the dismissal of the first revision on technical ground. In so far as the earlier revision is concerned, the same was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the revision on the question of limitation and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this court. The petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.

Dt.16.11.2007

nd.


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.