Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH CHANDRA & ANOTHER versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SAHARANPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramesh Chandra & Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 21776 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8440 (4 May 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21776 of 2007

Ramesh Chand and another

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Against an order passed by Consolidation Officer, contesting respondents no. 4 to 6 filed an appeal under Section 11 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') which was allowed vide order dated 13.6.2006 and the case was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer to be decided afresh. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.3.2007, against which  the present writ petition has been preferred.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that specific findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer have not been set aside by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and as such the remand order is illegal. It has further been urged that since the entire evidence  was available on record, Settlement Officer Consolidation ought to have considered the same and decided the matter on merits.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Settlement Office Consolidation finding that the Consolidation Officer without considering the relevant evidence and material on record has passed the order cursorily, allowed the appeal and remanded the case back. Revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed with the same finding.

After a careful perusal of the  impugned order, I find no illegality in the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation remanding the case back to be decided on merits afresh after considering the evidence on record as well as revisional order.

Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.  

Date : May 4, 2007.


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.