Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 129102 (ALL)

JITENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. REVENUE, LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WRIB/257/2025 · 2025-04-02

Saurabh Lavania

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18299 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 257 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey,Harsh Vardhan Kediya,Shashank Tilhari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of present petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief(s):- "a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the notification dated 18.09.2015, after summoning the same from its original, issued under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, by the way of which Village Bijauli in Sub-District Haidargarh, District Barabanki came under consolidation operation. OR b) allow the Petitioner to move a fresh representation and issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to consider and decide the same within a time-bound manner." The Notification, in issue, issued under Section 4-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") published on 18.09.2015 can be recalled by the Consolidation Commissioner, if Rule 17 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954") is attracted. Taking note of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1954 as also after considering para 5 to 17 of this petition and the judgments on the issue passed by this Court in the case(s) of Suraj Bhan vs. Director, Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh reported in 2006 LawSuit(All) 971 and Runup Gramodyog Evam Sewa Sansthan reported in MANU/UP/1587/2022, on being confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he would not press this petition so far is relate to relief No.(i) and a direction be issued to Authority concerned to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. In view of above, this petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as it relate to relief No. (i) prayed for in this petition. As regards relief No. (ii) prayed for in this petition, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Authority concerned to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of law on the subject including Rule 17 of the Rules of 1954, expeditiously. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench