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


Pradeep Divedi v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 55081 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17230 (5 October 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. 55081 of 2006

Pradeep Divedi            vs.            State of U.P.  & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The following main reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition :

"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Akar Patra 41 & 45 of village Baralokpur, City & District Etawah which has been prepared without completion of map and settlement of disputes pending before various consolidation. authorities.

ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents not to prepare fresh record of Akar Patra 41 & 45 till disposal/settlement of disputes/cases pending before various consolidation authorities keeping in view the interest of Chak holders."

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that since large number of cases are still pending before the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as this Court as such, the Akar Patra 41 & 45 cannot be finalized.

Merely because some cases are pending, the finalisation of consolidation operation cannot be stopped for that reason. Section 52(ii) and Rule 109A of the Rules framed under the Act has taken care of the situation by providing that the orders passed in cases pending under the Act on the date of issue of denotification shall be given effect to by the concerned authorities.

A writ of certiorari claimed by the petitioner for quashing of Akar Patra 41 & 45 on account of pendency of the dispute before various consolidation authorities as well as a general mandamus commanding the respondents not to prepare fresh record till the settlement/disposal of various cases pending cannot be granted.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.




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.