CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 10 AHC CK 0196

Vinay Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 10 October 2013 · Citation: (2013) 121 RD 569

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ-B No. 56580 of 2013

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

5 paragraphs · 368 words

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, holding brief of Sri Ram Mani Upadhyaya for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 19.1.2013, by which the application moved by Bhagauti Prasad (respondent-5) under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, has been allowed.

2.

The Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of CO dated 12.10.1992, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Revisional Court on which 12.7.2012 was the date fixed. However, the revision was taken upon 2.7.2012 and was dismissed in default. When the petitioner attended the case on 12.7.2012, then he came to know about the order of dismissal of the revision and filed a recall application on 14.7.2012. However, taking advantage of the order dated 12.10.2012, the application of respondent-5 has been allowed by CO by order dated 19.1.2013. When the matter was brought to the notice of CO, he by order dated 1.6.2013, stayed the operation of the order dated 19.1.2013. However, subsequently, by the order dated 7.8.2013, the order dated 1.6.2013 has been vacated. He submits that the respondents are avoiding hearing of the recall application before the DDC. He further submits that so long as the revision is pending, the order of CO cannot be treated as a final order and proceeding under Rule 109-A was not liable to be initiated and no order could have been passed on it.

3.

I have heard the arguments of Counsel for the petitioner.

4.

Since the restoration application as well as revision of the petitioner is pending, it will be appropriate that the DDC may be directed to decide the restoration application of the petitioner, as early as possible. In case the restoration application is allowed, then the revision be also decided by him, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him, after hearing the parties concerned.

5.

Till the disposal of the revision or for a period of four months, whichever is earlier, the orders of CO dated 19.1.2013 and 7.8.2013, shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.