Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KODAI SINGH versus DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, KUSHINAGAR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kodai Singh v. District Director Of Consolidation, Kushinagar & Others - WRIT - B No. 46203 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14372 (25 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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46203 of 2006

Kodai Singh

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar at Padrauna and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard   learned counsel for the petitioner.

Main relief claimed in this  petition is to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.5.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 and to issue a mandamus directing the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the reference himself.

The facts are that proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (For short ''the Act) initiated by the respondents were finalized in favour of the petitioner up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. After final adjudication of the dispute, an application under Section 48 (3) of the Act was moved by the petitioner in the year 1989. Reference prepared on the said application was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 7.5.1990. The contesting respondents filed restoration application which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 12.11.1990. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32379 of 1990. Another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 322 of 1991 was also filed by one Vishwanath and others. Both the writ petitions were connected and disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.12.1997. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.11.1990 was quashed and he was directed to decide the reference afresh after opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation again decided the dispute vide order dated 8.1.1999. The petitioner moved an application to recall the order dated 8.1.1999 on the ground that the said order was an exparte order. Restoration application was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 19.3.1999. Respondent no. 3 and certain other persons challenged the said order by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18927 of 1999 which was allowed vide order dated 4.5.2000. The matter again went back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation where it was pending. Instead of passing any final order, the Deputy Director of Consolidation issued interim orders which were challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31669 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2000 directing the respondent no. 1 to decide the matter within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of order. Inspite of there being specific direction, the Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to comply with the same and proceedings remain pending. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27283 of 2001. This petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 25.7.2001 with direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the reference expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Inspite of the aforesaid direction, though more than five years have passed, proceedings are still pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation instead of disposing of the proceedings finally, he has again passed an order dated 12.5.2006 directing ''Amal Daramad' of the order dated 8.1.1999 in the revenue records. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant writ petition.

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation instead of complying with the orders passed by this Court has kept proceedings pending unnecessarily for no rhyme and reason which amounts to contempt of the orders passed by this Court.

However, instead of initiating proceedings of contempt against the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in the facts and circumstances, I feel appropriate to direct the District Deputy Director of Consolidation to hear and decide the reference   positively within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him in accordance with law and after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

Till the disposal of the reference proceedings as directed aforesaid, status quo shall be maintained by the parties with regard to property in dispute in all respect.

Subject to the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.

25.08.2006


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.