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


Shiv Das & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 19826 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7326 (20 April 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).


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

     The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation officer after 32 years. The Settlement Officer Consolidation condoned the delay., the copy of which order has been annexed. It does not indicate that he has applied mind to the sufficiency of the explanation given by the petitioners for the delay. All that has been stated is that a liberal attitude has to be adopted, which is not a sufficient ground in a case of such a long delay. More so when a counter affidavit controverting the averments in the delay condonation application was filed. The Deputy Director Consolidation has allowed the revision by his order dated 10.6.2005. The petitioners thereafter filed a recall application on the ground that the order was an ex parte one. The recall application was dismissed by the Deputy Director Consolidation with the finding that the order was passed after hearing the petitioners. Against the order dated 29.3.2006 the petitioners have now after a year filed this writ petition. There is thus again a delay in filing of the writ petition. The petitioners have tried to explain the delay by saying the they had filed the recall application on the advice of their counsel and the counsel did not inform them about the order dated 29.3.2006. Even the name of the counsel who is said to have given them the advice to file the recall application nor of the counsel who was conducting their case before the Deputy Director Consolidation in the recall application has not been disclosed. The averments are vague.  It is not a fit case for interference. 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.