Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Thru. ... vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation Agra And 3 ... on 9 January, 2020

Author: Salil Kumar Rai

Bench: Salil Kumar Rai





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 50
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 49409 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Thru. Mahant And Anr.
 
Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Agra And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
 

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the proceedings registered under Rule 109 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1954).

It has been stated in the writ petition that the proceedings have been instituted by respondent no. 4 on the basis of some order dated 17.1.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as C.O) accepting him as the Sarvarakar of Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Village Samogar, Tehsil & District Agra. It has been further stated that the order dated 17.1.1981 was set aside by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as S.O.C) vide his order dated 23.9.1985 passed in Appeal No.1056/191 of 1982 and the issue regarding Sarvarakarship of the petitioners has also been decided by the Civil Court vide its judgement and order dated 11.9.2006.

It was argued that the proceedings before the C.O under Rule 109 of the Rules, 1954 were not maintainable as in his order order dated 23.9.1985, the S.O.C has directed that the basic year records shall be maintained. No final orders have yet been passed by the C.O in the aforesaid proceedings and therefore, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage.

The petitioners may file an application before the C.O bringing to his notice all the necessary facts who shall pass appropriate orders in the proceedings instituted by respondent no.4.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the correctness of the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition.

Order Date :- 9.1.2020 IB