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


Gun Raj & Others v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Mau & Others - WRIT - B No. 38382 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12151 (25 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).


Civil Misc. Writ No. 38382 of 2006

Gun Raj & Others...........Petitioners


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau

& Others......Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

Challenge has been made to the order dated 12.06.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation accepting the reference in exercise of powers conferred under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act').

The facts are that an objection under Section 9 A (2) of the Act, filed by the contesting respondent no.3, was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 28.8.1980 and it was directed that the name of the respondent no. 3 be mutated in place of his deceased father. For implementation of the said order, reference proceedings were initiated and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation forwarded a reference on 24.12.1991 which has been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order. The petitioners challenged the reference proceedings and the order passed therein on the ground that they had filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer which is still pending and as such the reference proceedings are without jurisdiction and the impugned order accepting the said reference is illegal.

It appears that after the reference was prepared and forwarded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the year 1991 to install the said proceedings, the petitioners filed a highly belated appeal in the year 1994. There appears to be no justification to install the reference proceedings for implementation of an order, which was passed in the year 1980 merely on the ground that the petitioners filed time barred appeal with delay of almost 14 years. Even otherwise nothing had been brought on record by the petitioners to indicate that why the said appeal filed by them has remained pending for more than 12 years.

In such circumstances, mere pendency of an appeal cannot constitute a good ground to delay the reference proceedings. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

The writ petition accordingly fails, and is 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.