Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DAYANAND AND 6 OTHERSversusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, TEHSIL- SAKALDIHA, DISTRICTCHANDAULI, DIVISION- VARANASI AND 6

Decided

Holding

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the subject matter had already been disposed of.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging actions of the Consolidation authorities. While the petition was pending, the Consolidation authorities disposed of the underlying matter, rendering the relief sought by the petitioners unavailable. The petitioners, through counsel, informed the Court that the case had become infructuous. The private respondent’s counsel raised no objection to this development. Relying on the principle that a writ petition becomes moot when the subject matter is resolved, the Court dismissed the petition as infructuous.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition becomes infructuous and must be dismissed when the underlying dispute is resolved by the concerned authority.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • infructuous
  • dismissal
  • High Court
  • procedural law

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                             WRIT - B No. - 1680 of 2026

                                    Dayanand And 6 Others
                                                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                       Versus


                                    Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Tehsil-
                                    Sakaldiha, Districtchandauli, Division- Varanasi
                                    And 6 Others                                              .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                   :    Dr. Vishnu Pandey
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :    C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 54
                                                     HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

                                    1. Heard Dr. Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
                                    Sudharshan Singh, leraned counsel for the private respondent.

                                    2. Dr. Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
                                    after filing of the writ petition, the pending matter has been disposed of by
                                    the Consolidation authorities, as such, the instant writ petition has become
                                    infructuous.

                                    3. Mr. Sudharshan Singh, leraned counsel for the private respondent has
                                    no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                    4. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the
                                    writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.



                                                                                       (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Rameez




Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.