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

2024 Supreme(All) 2397

DINESH PATHAK
Badri Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director Of Consolidation – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Om Prakash Pandey, Kailash Nath
For the Respondents: C.S.C., A.P. Singh.

JUDGMENT :

(Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has inadvertently mentioned the date of order as 18.01.2001 in place of 08.01.2001 in his order dated 04.12.2021. In fact, the earlier order passed on the restoration application is dated 08.01.2001.

3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed, this Court proceeds to decide the writ petition finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties, without calling for respective affidavits of the parties in the present writ petition (i.e. counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit) and without putting notice to the remaining respondent nos. 5 to 11 with liberty to them to move a recall application, in case any fact and details, as mentioned in the present writ petition, are found to be incorrect.

4. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

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