Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUMAR versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sumar v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 958 of 1984 [2007] RD-AH 8722 (8 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 958 of  1984



Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 16.11.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the case back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute between the parties afresh.

This Court vide order dated 17.1.1984 while issuing notice to the respondents stayed the operation of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has been alleged on behalf of respondents that copy of the stay order was never produced before the Consolidation Officer and as such he proceeded in the matter in accordance with the order of remand.

During pendency of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, parties entered into compromise, on the basis of which dispute was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.1.1984. It has  also been alleged that the said order has been challenged by the petitioner in appeal which is pending before the Consolidation Officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that copy of the stay order passed by this Court was not produced before the Consolidation Officer. In view of this, Consolidation Officer, in my opinion, committed no illegality in proceeding with the case. Dispute between the parties is pending adjudication before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal and shall be decided on its own merits. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, it has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 17.1.1984 is vacated.

Date : May 8, 2007.


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.