Back
JASPREET SINGH
Lateef @ Lateef Ali – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ambedkar Nager – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 01.06.2024 which has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar whereby after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it has rejected the application of the petitioner for vacation of the interim order and has further fixed the matter for final hearing.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had initiated proceedings for rectification/correction of entries wherein an order was passed. The private respondents against the said order had preferred a revision and at the first instance the respondent no. 1 by means of order dated 27.05.2023 had granted the interim order without even calling for any response from the respondents of the revision. As the order was ex-parte and the revision was filed alongwith an application under Section 5 and without condoning the delay the said revision could not be heard on merits to grant an interim order and in the aforesaid context the petitioner had earlier assailed the order da
Discretionary orders regarding interim relief should not be interfered with unless they are patently illegal, particularly when no merits are decided.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded jurisdiction by quashing a final order not under review, violating procedural propriety.
The court emphasized the necessity of fair representation and substantiated reasoning in administrative decisions, especially when property rights are at stake.
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....
Orders must adhere to principles of natural justice, and failure to do so renders them invalid.
Point of Law : If there was any technical violation of the rules of natural justice, that was not a ground for interference, as such interference would result in resurrection of an illegal, nay, void....
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible.
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
