Suresh Devi v. State of U.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In our considered view once the matter is engaging attention of the consolidation authority, petitioner should avail the appropriate remedy available to him under the said special Act. He also may get the forest department impleaded in a proceedings drawn under Section 9A(2) or…
Judgment
#1. Heard Sri Shivam Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
#2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as prayed for a direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 14.06.2024 and 15.06.2025.
#3. From the perusal of the representation it transpires that consolidation proceedings are going on in the village and the landed property in terms of area is found to be lesser than the recorded one in the record of rights. It is contended that the forest department land is overlapping with the land of the petitioner.
#4. In our considered view once the matter is engaging attention of the consolidation authority, petitioner should avail the appropriate remedy available to him under the said special Act. He also may get the forest department impleaded in a proceedings drawn under Section 9A(2) or otherwise my request for a reference to be made under Section 42 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948.
#5. Subject to aforesaid liberty, petition is consigned to records. December 16, 2025 Kirti (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.