Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3188 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vinay And 2 Others Respondent :- District Deputy Director Of Consolidation Or Collector And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhagwan Dutt Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikas Mani Srivastava
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Petitioners, who are three in number, have preferred this writ petition with the following prayers:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.4.2017 (Annexure No. 8) passed by the respondent no. 1 in Revision No. D- 201705470274 (Rajmati & others Vs. Rajendra and others) under Sections 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire proceeding of Revision No. D- 201705470274 (Rajmati & others Vs. Rajendra and others0 under section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act, pending before District Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Collector, Maharajganj, the respondent no.1 (Annexure No. 7) to this writ petition)."
The order dated 1.4.2017 is an interlocutory order whereby the order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been stayed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Copy of the said order dated 1.4.2017 has been brought on record as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Vikas Mani Srivastava, has pointed out that against the order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner has already filed an appeal. It is further submitted that earlier the petitioner has filed Writ-B No. 22424 of 2017 wherein no interim order was passed on the ground that order challenged is interlocutory order.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be issued to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to complete the proceedings and decide revision expeditiously.
In view of the above fact and submissions, to meet the ends of justice, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to complete the proceedings and decide the revision expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Learned counsel for both the parties have assured the Court that both the parties will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. However, it is provided that the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall not grant any unnecessary adjournement to either of the parties as held by the Apex Court in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd and others, (2011) 9 SCC 678, and Noor Mohammed v. Jethnand, (2013) 5 SCC 202 and in case any adjournment is granted, the same shall be subject to deposit of Rs.500/- as cost.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Ram Murti