Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHAGWAT PRASAD versus D.D.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhagwat Prasad v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 2598 of 1985 [2006] RD-AH 11311 (12 July 2006)

 

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

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2598 of 1985

Bhagwat Prasad vs.  Dy, Director Consolidation, Mirzapur and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This matter arises out of consolidation proceedings involving question of title.  Consolidation officer decided against petitioner.  However, Settlement Officer Consolidation, Mirzapur allowed appeal no.873 filed by the petitioner and reversed the judgment of Consolidation officer and granted final relief to the petitioner through judgment and order dated 18.1.1983.  Against the said judgment contesting respondent filed revision no.342 before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur.  D.D.C. instead of deciding the matter finally remanded the matter to Settlement Officer Consolidation through judgment and order dated 19.11.1984 which is challenged through this writ petition (another revision no.352 filed by Pratisadh Narayan Pandey was dismissed by the said order and that portion of the order has become final as it has not been challenged).

While remanding the matter D.D.C. mentioned that S.O.C. has not considered the points involved in the case and the evidence available on the file.  D.D.C. has mentioned that S.O.C. has only noted the arguments of both the parties then decided the matter.

In my opinion S.O.C. had also given his findings on the evidence adduced by the parties and the arguments raised by them.

There was no need to remand the matter.  D.D.C. should have finally decided the matter.  By virtue of Explanation 3 added to Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by U.P. Act No.3 of 2002 with effect from 21.6.2002,  revisional court is fully empowered to examine any finding whether of fact or law and revisional court also has got the power to reappraise any oral or documentary evidence.

In view of the above I find that there was absolutely no need for the revisional court to remand the matter.  Revisional court should have decided the revision finally.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order of D.D.C. is quashed.  Matter is remanded to the revisional court to decide the respective claims of the parties finally.  It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion about rights of the parties.  D.D.C. is directed to decide each and every point involved and argued on the basis of evidence available on record.  As the matter is quite old hence D.D.C., Mirzapur shall decide the revision very expeditiously, positively within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  Both the parties are directed to appear before the D.D.C., Mirzapur alongwith certified copy of this order on 10.8.2006.

Until decision of revision parties shall maintain status quo.

12.7.2006

RS/-


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.