Ram Pal And 7 Others v. Sudeep Dwivedi
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
The present writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer, Ghorawal , District Sonbhadra in proceedings arising under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the revisional authority by means of which the appeal and revision of the petitioner have been dismissed.
It is contended on behalf of petitioners that compromise was entered in respect of Gata No. 505 in proceedings under Section 9A (2) and the same was affirmed up to High Court in terms of the judgment and order dated
21.08.2019 passed in Writ B No. 26317 of 2015 and connected matters.
It is further contended that the petitioners have not been allotted the required area of land under the compromise as affirmed by this Court vide the order dated 21.08.2019, which led to initiation of proceedings under Section 21 (1) of the Act, 1953. However, the Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of the petitioners and further increased valuation of land from 70paise to 80 paise. Thereafter the appeal and revision of the petitioner have also been dismissed.
The petitioners further rely on the order dated 03.07.204 passed by this Court in Writ B No. 1651 of 2024 wherein while relegating the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 2 WRIB No. 5355 of 2025 1953 this Court had given interim protection to the petitioners..
Matter requires consideration.
Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List on 15.05.2026.
Till the next date of listing parties are directed to maintain status quo over the property in dispute. April 3, 2026 Nadeem (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.