Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Sagir Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Addl. District Magistrate/Deputy Director Consolidation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to prior consolidation orders (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. arguments against the merits of interference (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's observation on merits not addressed (Para 16 , 17) |
| 4. remand for decision on merits (Para 18) |
| 5. order for compliance communication (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Sri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of private respondent No.2-Peer Mohammad, which is taken on record.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners says that he may be permitted to implead the necessary parties in the memo of the petition.
4. The prayer is acceded.
5. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the necessary parties, during course of the day.
6. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is dispensed with.
7. By means of present petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-Additional District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Amethi, whereby respondent No.1 interfered in the order dated 15.10.2020 passed
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must address condonation of delay before considering case merits, as established in precedent.
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
Subordinate authorities cannot review final orders from higher authorities under the governing statute; adhering to higher court directives ensures substantial justice is upheld.
Point of Law : It is well settled proposition of law that existence of sufficient cause is sine quo non, for condonation of delay. In absence of being any finding that cause shown is sufficient delay....
Writ petitions must demonstrate material deprivation and include necessary parties, or they risk dismissal as mis-conceived.
Relief not sought in specific terms cannot be granted, emphasizing the necessity of proper pleadings in legal proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
