SMT SAKUNTALA DEVI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE / DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, BULANDSHAHR AND 6 OTHERS
WRIB/3585/2025 · 2025-09-14
Ajay Bhanot
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 90997 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 90997 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 3585 of 2025 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. By means of the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 an application for transfer of the revision from the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr to any other competent court has been declined. The impugned order dated 18.08.2025 records that by the order dated 18.07.2025 the application made on behalf of the revision for impleading a party was allowed and the matter was posted on 21.07.2025 for arguments. Instead of preparing for his argument the transfer application was filed prior to the date of final arguments. On this footing the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr has found that only intention of the petitioner was to delay the proceedings. The impugned order also records that no supporting evidences to corroborate the allegations in the transfer application were produced before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr. The transfer application discloses that the matter was posted for 18.07.2025 for orders on the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner. On 18.07.2025 the matter was posted for 21.07.2025 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr to which counsel for the opposite party agreed, but the counsel for the petitioner sought a later date which was declined. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ayub Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kapil Kumar, Sunder Singh, C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh Smt Sakuntala Devi .....Petitioner(s) District Magistrate / District Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Bulandshahr And 6 Others .....Respondent(s)
No other allegations of malafides or undue influence are disclosed from the application. The petitioner's counsel had requested the learned trial court to advance hearing date by two more days. However, now much time has elapsed since 21.07.2025 and the grievance of the petitioner does not survive. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. After the order was passed, Shri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision is liable to be decided within a reasonable period of time. Shri Sundar Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.3 to 6 does not have any objection to the aforesaid prayer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr is directed to decide the matter within a period of one month as per law after hearing both the parties.
September 15, 2025 Ashish Tripathi WRIB No. 3585 of 2025 2 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad