High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 09 UK CK 0151

Randhir Singh and Another vs Assistant Director of Consolidation and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 22 September 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2058 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 376 words

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—This Writ Petition pertains to the year 1988. It was filed at the relevant year i.e. in 1988 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and stands transferred to this Court u/s 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed this petition for non-prosecution on 9.3.2010. A restoration application has now been filed for recalling the order dated 9.3.2010 and restoring the writ petition to its original number.

2.

There is an objection by the Registry to the effect that it is not accompanied by the Delay Condonation Application although it is barred by limitation by 22 days. However, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned. Order dated 9.3.2010 is recalled. Writ Petition is restored to its original number.

3.

List revised. None appeared for the petitioner. Heard Mr. R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

4.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.2.1988 passed by respondent No. 1 i.e. the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Ist Muzaffarnagar Camp at Saharanpur, order dated 27.3.1987 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur and order dated 27.1.1986 passed by respondent No. 3 i.e. the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee.

5.

Brief facts of the case are that the mutation application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.1.1986 on the grounds that such an application cannot be entertained as mutation has already been done and no permission of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been taken before executing the sale deed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.3.1987. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Ist Muzaffarnagar Camp at Saharanpur which was also dismissed.

6.

Perused the orders of the authorities. Under the law applicable at the relevant time, the mutation application was not liable to be entertained. There is absolutely no anomaly in the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned.

7.

The present writ petition is absolutely devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

8.

Interim orders, if any, are also vacated.

9.

No order as to costs.