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


Suman & Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 52824 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16938 (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).


Court No. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52824 of 2006

Suman & another   vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Madhusudan Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Challenge in this petition has been made to the revisional order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in chak allotment proceedings.

The facts are that a time barred appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents against the order dated 29.4.1997 was dismissed vide order dated 7.12.2004 which was challenged by them by filing a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 5.9.2006 allowed the revision and disturbed the chak of the petitioners.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision filed by the contesting respondents has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  without assigning any reason.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned order. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have been allotted chak on their original holding and there is no cause of action and the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that it is totally devoid of any reason. After noting down the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has straight way recorded his conclusion without assigning any reason for arriving at the said conclusion. As a revisional authority it was incumbent upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have discussed the case of the both the parties and he should have recorded reason for arriving at the conclusion.

In the absence of any reasons, the impugned order dated 5.9.2006 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.

The writ petition stands allowed.

The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove after notice and opportunity of hearing to all concerned.




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.