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


Lohiya Brass Private Ltd. v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Moradabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 58276 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18239 (28 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58276 of 2006

Lohiya Brass Private Limited...............Petitioner


Deputy Director of Consolidation , Moradabad

& Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purposes of the case are as under;

The dispute between respondents no. 2 and 3 who are real brothers with regard to chak allotment came to be adjudicated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision vide order dated 5.8.2003. After about six months, respondent no. 3 moved a restoration application to recall the order dated 5.8.2003 on the ground that it was passed ex parte. The petitioner, who purchased the land from respondent no. 2 by means of a registered sale deed having come to know about the recall application, filed an application for being impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 22.9.2006 allowed the restoration application filed by respondent no. 3 and directed the revision to be heard on merits.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after finalization of the chak allotment proceedings, respondent no. 2 sold the land in dispute to him and now with a dishonest intention, one of brothers has moved an application to recall the said order and they are proceeding to get the revision decided by way of compromise between themselves in order to deprive the petitioner from the benefit of the sale deed.

Without expressing any opinion on the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, in my opinion, this petition is premature. By means of order dated 22.9.2006, which has been challenged by the petitioner, only restoration application filed by respondent no. 3, has been allowed and the revision has been directed to be heard on merits.

The petitioner has already moved an application for being impleaded as a party. The interest of justice would be served, in case, the petitioner is allowed to participate in the proceedings and have a say which may be considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  in accordance with law.

Considering the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation , Moradabad to permit the petitioner to be impleaded and participate in the revisional proceedings and to decide the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.

Dt. 28.10.2006


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.