Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAYA NAND versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Daya Nand v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. - 57572 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18198 (22 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. 05

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 57572 of 2007

Daya Nand

versus

State of U. P. & Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri S. S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.

Main relief claimed in the writ petition is to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda to decide Reference No. 749 within stipulated period.

It is alleged that two objections filed by father of petitioner and one by petitioner under section 9 A(2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act') for recording the name over the plots in dispute were allowed by Consolidation Officer in the year 2002 and 2004 respectively. However, due to mistake the said orders could not be incorporated in C. H. Form 41 and 45 and the entry of 'Navinparti' and 'Banjar' continued. Petitioner moved an application under Section 42 A of the Act. Consolidation Officer prepared a reference and forwarded it to Deputy Director of Consolidation on 27.7.2007 for his approval and the same is pending disposal.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the said reference expressing apprehension that Gaon Sabha is undertaking proceedings for allotment of land in dispute. There is nothing on record to substantiate the apprehension expressed by petitioner. Further reference has only been forwarded to Deputy Director of Consolidation on 27.7.2007. Since then not much time has elapsed which may warrant issuance of a writ of mandamus for expeditious disposal of the same as claimed by petitioner. Every court is entitled to maintain its own diary which should not be lightly interfered with.

In view of above, relief claimed by petitioner is not liable to be allowed. The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed in limine.

Dt./-22.11.2007

KKS


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.