Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KUMAR versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, FARRUKHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kumar v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Farrukhabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 45309 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14207 (23 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45309 of 2006

Ram Kumar .............Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farrukhabad,

& Others...........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under;

After death of recorded tenure holder Vidyawati, respondent no. 3 applied for mutation of her name claiming  to be sole heir of deceased. The Assistant Consolidation Officer allowed the application filed by respondent no. 3 and directed her name to be recorded in place of deceased Vidyawati. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation.He also filed an objection under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidaiton Of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') for mutation of his name in place of deceased   tenure holder Vidyawati, on the basis of a will said to have been executed in his favour. The Settlement Officer Consolidation consolidated both the appeals and vide order dated 31.5.2006 remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer to be decided afresh after affording opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties. Aggrieved the petitioner went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed as not maintainable on 16.11.2005 in absence of the petitioner. He moved an application dated 2nd January 2006 for recall of the order on the ground that he could not appear on the said date due to illness of his son. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.5.2006 dismissed the recall application on the ground that since the revision was dismissed as not maintainable and the said order was passed on merits as such recall application is not maintainable.

The petitioner in effect is aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation remanding the case back to the Consolidation officer. No doubt the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision as not maintainable in absence of the petitioner and his recall application has also been dismissed but learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the remand order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

The revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation which is interlocutory in nature, has rightly been dismissed even though in his absence.

In view of above, no interference is required in the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Director of consolidation. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Dt.23.8.2006


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.