Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ZULFIQAR AHMAD versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BAREILLY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Zulfiqar Ahmad v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Bareilly & Others - WRIT - B No. 46738 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14739 (29 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. 46738 of 2006

Zulfiqar Ahmad ........Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly   & Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. B. Mohan holding brief of Sri V. K. Singh appearing  for Gaon Sabha.

The facts are that an objection filed by the deceased father of the petitioner under Section 9 A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act'). His name was allowed to be recorded over the land in dispute after expunging the entry of Gaon Sabha vide order dated 28.4.1999. After about 10 years passing of the said order, respondents no. 4 to 8 filed an appeal. Challenging the said order, an appeal was also filed by Gaon Sabha. The Settlement Officer Consolidation consolidated both the appeals. During pendency of the appeals, father of the petitioner is said to have died on 2.9.2002. An application for substitution was moved which was allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation on 9.9.2005. On the same day, the petitioner moved an application for recalling the order passed on the substitution application. Vide order dated 27.9.2005, the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected the  recall application against which the petitioner preferred a revision which has also been dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

While rejecting restoration application, the Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded a finding that in connected appeal the substitution application has already been allowed on 9.10.2002 and thus the order on the substitution application in the other appeal was only formality.

The dispute between the parties is with regard to a land, which was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.4.1999 was passed in favour of the petitioner without any contest or evidence on behalf of Gaon Sabha.

In this view of the matter it would be appropriate that dispute may be adjudicated on merits rather than on mere technicality as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of non-substitution within time the appeal should be abated.

In view of above, I decline to interfere in the order impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.

Dt.29.8.2006


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.