Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RUDAL versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rudal v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 18402 of 1988 [2005] RD-AH 6354 (24 November 2005)


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).


Court No. 28




Deputy Director  of Consolidation & ors.

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,  J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. The petitioner as well as contesting respondent no. 3 were satisfied by the  proposed allotment of their chaks  as no objection was filed by them. However, the chak of respondent no. 3 was disturbed by the Consolidation Officer  on the objection filed by some other tenure holder. Aggrieved by the same he filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide  order  dated 15.2.1986 allowed  the appeal  and the chak  proposed to the petitioner was disturbed by the said order. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 21.11.1987. The petitioner who was a minor at that time and was contesting the proceeding through his mother, moved an application to recall the order  dated 22.11.1987 on the ground that it was an ex parte order passed without hearing  his counsel. It was pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of restoration application that on 1.8.1987 the case was adjourned to 22.8.1987. The case could  not  be heard on account of strike by the employee  of the court and the Presiding Officer was also  transferred. Thereafter, without any notice the court was held in the camp at Kasia situate at a distance of 34 km  from the district Headquarter and the revision was dismissed without any opportunity of hearing.  The restoration application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 22.12.1987 within one month from the date of passing the alleged ex parte order. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 24.6.1988 dismissed the restoration application. The only finding recorded by  Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order is that there is no force in the restoration application. No reason has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for rejecting the restoration application.  The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also failed to record any finding with respect to the averments  made  on behalf of the petitioner in the recall application. The impugned order dated 24.6.1988 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the restoration application being totally devoid of reasons cannot be sustained and  is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands partly allowed.

The case is remanded back  to Deputy Director of Consolidation for considering the restoration application afresh in accordance with law.

In view of the fact that matter has remained pending for a long period the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the restoration application of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.




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.