Sri Ram vs D.D.C. And 16 Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3313 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 36315 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Sri Ram
 
Respondent :- D.D.C. And 16 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Mishra,S.C. Varma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Saurabh
 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Shri S.C. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.S. Singh, holding brief of Shri Anand Saurabh, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 6 and 8.  He prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 4,5,7, 9 to 17 by registered post A.D.

Steps may be taken within two week.

Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by learned Standing Counsel may also take steps to intimate the respondent no. 2 about this writ petition.  The respondent no. 2 shall file his reply to the writ petition especially, the averments  contained in paragraph 17 of the writ petition within two weeks as specified above. 

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 29.12.1988.  Against the order, a restoration application was filed by Ziyau, who is father of the respondent nos. 3 and 6.  This restoration application was rejected on 1.6.1989 which order appears to have been become final.  In 2003, a fresh restoration application has been filed by his sons (Ziyau's) which has been allowed by the impugned order.  The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that the DDC reviewed his order which  power he does not possess under the Act.

Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 9.6.2014 shall remain stayed.

List on the date fixed in the notice to be issued notice to respondents by registered post. 

Order Date :- 17.7.2014

Priyanka