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


Manfool & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 42719 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13505 (17 August 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 Petition No. 42719 of 2006

Manfool  and  others


State of U. P. through Collector Etah and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard  Sri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Vide order passed on 11th March, 2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16491 of 2005 filed by the petitioner, an interim mandamus was issued directing  respondent no. 3, Tehsildar Kasganj, District Etah to implement the order dated 3.2.2000 passed by Consolidation Officer within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him or show cause by filing counter affidavit. It is contended that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, order dated 3.2.2000 was implemented and the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record. Subsequently, Gaon Sabha moved an application for recalling the order on the ground that the name of the petitioners were recorded without hearing Gaon Sabha and the State Government. On the said application, an order was passed staying the effect and operation of the order dated 3.2.2000 which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

Order dated 3.2.2000 was passed in  proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act initiated by the petitioners. A perusal of the order indicates that Gaon Sabha was heard and the objections filed on its behalf were considered. However, even after passing of the said order when names of the petitioners were not being record in revenue record, they had approached this Court by filing earlier writ petition. The authorities instead of showing cause chose   to comply with interim mandamus and directed named of the petitioners to be recorded. Thereafter, Gaon Sabha moved an application for recall of the order dated 3.2.2000 on the ground that the said order was an exparte order.

Considering the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of  with the  direction to the Consolidation Officer, Etah to  decide restoration application filed by Gaon Sabha  in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this orders before him. For a period of two months or  till the disposal of the restoration application, whichever is earlier, parties shall maintain status quo.



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.