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


Ram Shanker v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 53556 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16925 (26 September 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. 54282 of 2006

Rama Shanker      ...............Petitioners


Deputy Director of Consolidation , Shahjahanpur

&   others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard Sri B. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 8.6.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  dismissing the recall application filed by the petitioner.

The facts are that revision filed by the petitioner challenging the appellate order was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  vide order dated 31.10.2003. Dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner preferred an application dated 17.1.2004 for recall of the same on the ground that the order was passed in his absence and without any opportunity of hearing to him. The Deputy Director of Consolidation  vide order dated 8.6.2006 has dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation  has recorded a finding that the order dated 31.10.2003 was passed after hearing the parties inasmuch as the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner had been noted in the said judgment as such the recall application is not maintainable.

I have perused the order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. It is clear recorded in the said order that it was argued on behalf of Rama Shanker that he may be allotted a chak given to him at the state of Assistant Consolidation Officer.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation  after considering the facts and circumstances allowed the revision filed by the petitioner. Since the order was passed on merits after hearing the counsel for the parties the application to recall the same was not maintainable and hadrightly been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.

Dt. 26.9.2006


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.