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


Smt. Nazma Atiq v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Sitapur Camp & Others - WRIT - B No. 70945 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 612 (10 January 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70945 of 2007    

Smt. Nazma Atiq                


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur Camp, Saharanpur


Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. C. Singh appearing for contesting respondents.

The facts are that contesting respondents no. 3 to 5 moved an application under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act'), which was dismissed by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.5.2000. An application to recall the said order was also dismissed on 3.7.2002. Aggrieved, contesting respondents preferred an appeal.  During pendency of appeal, an application was moved to bring on record heirs of deceased Sardar Hasan, one of the person impleaded as respondent in appeal. Substitution application was opposed by petitioner by filing objection. Settlement Officer Consolidation  vide order dated 19.12.2003 allowed substitution application and substituted heirs of deceased respondent and directed notices to be issued to them. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred a revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation  finding that revision was directed against interlocutory order dismissed the same. Subsequently, petitioner moved an application to recall the same on the ground that it was passed without hearing him. Deputy Director of Consolidation  dismissed the restoration application affirming the finding that order dated 19.12.2003 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation  was interlocutory order hence did not call for any interference. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

It has been urged by learned counsel for petitioner that substitution application was filed after delay of two years and same has wrongly and illegally been allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation.

In reply, it has been submitted that in order to decide dispute between the parties effectively, substitution application has rightly been allowed.

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

It is well settled that dispute between the parties should be adjudicated on merits rather than technicalities. In this view of the matter, Settlement Officer Consolidation  committed no illegality in allowing the substitution application.

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




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.