Sakir @ Sabir and 7 Others v. Chief Revenue Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation and 6 Others

Order on memo of petition

¶1Sri Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner seeks withdrawal of writ petition qua to petitioner nos. 1 to 5.

¶2Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua to petitioners no. 1 to 5.

¶3This writ petition is now pending only in respect of petitioners no. 6 to 8.

¶4Heard Sri Mir Sayed, learned counsel for petitioners no. 6 to 8.

¶5Learned counsel submits that entire issue has been decided by two Authorities, therefore, impugned order whereby matter has now been remitted is erroneous.

¶6He also submits that there are certain observations of Revisional Authority which would prejudice the case of petitioners.

¶7Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondents submits that impugned order is justified and in case it would prejudice the case of petitioners, this Court may clarify it.

¶8In view of above submissions as well as taking note that Revisional Court, after considering case on merit, has found that there were certain issues which are required to be considered by Consolidation Officer, therefore, he has remitted back the matter to Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order.

¶9I have perused the operative portion of impugned order and found that there are certain issues which were not considered and decided in first round earlier.

¶10Therefore, there is no illegality in impugned order.

¶11So far as anxiety of petitioners no. 6 to 8 are concerned that any observation made by Revisional Authority may influence the Consolidation Officer which could be removed with an observation that Consolidation Officer will decide the matter afresh without being influenced by any observation of Revisional Authority on merit.

¶12Prayer made in this writ petition is hereby rejected, however, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that Consolidation Officer will decide the matter afresh, after considering all grounds and without being influenced by observation of Revisional Authority, expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today. Order Date :- 12.12.2023 Nirmal Sinha High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1401 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sakir @ Sabir And 7 Others Respondent :- Chief Revenue Officer And Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Pandey,Mir Sayed,Mithilesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pramod Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. Order on Substitution Application No. 3/2023 1. Heard. 2. Allowed. 3. Let substitution be carried out during course of day. Order on Substitution Application No. 4/2023 1. As legal heirs of respondent no.3 have already been substituted by order of date passed in Substitution Application No. 3/2023, therefore, this substitution application has been rendered infructuous. 2. Accordingly, application is dismissed as infructuous.