SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1888

DINESH PATHAK
Vijay Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Deena Nath
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and order proposed to be passed herein under, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents without calling for their respective affidavits.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved with the ex-parte order dated 01.08.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer (respondent no.5) behind his back sans opportunity of hearing accorded to him, consequently, he has been deprived of from his valuable right, title, interest and possession over the land in question.

4. Perusal of record, as available, reveals that Assistant Consolidation Officer has submitted ex-parte report dated 01.08.2023 for expunging the name of recorded persons from plot Nos.300, 318, 357, 385, 387, 409, 422, 452, 453, 456, 524, 537, 840, 951, 953, 955, 954-kha, 962, 963, 972 and 983 total 21 plots area 135 bigha 10 biswa (34.271 hectare) which had allegedly been recorded in Clause 5-3 kha(1) as jungle jhadi. Con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top