Allahabad High Court
SANTRAM AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the relief sought cannot be granted after the final order has been passed.
Summary
The petitioners Santram and six others filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Jalaun, to transmit certain consolidation records and to decide a pending revision. They argued that the Deputy Director had already passed a final order, which they subsequently challenged by filing another writ petition (Writ‑B No.1571 of 2026). The court noted that the relief sought in the original petition had become impossible to grant because the final order was already in force. Consequently, the court held that the petition was infructuous. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Deputy Director of Consolidation to transmit records and decide a revision when a final order has already been passed.
- Whether the petition becomes infructuous upon the issuance of the final order.
Legislation cited
- Consolidation of Holding Act — s. 9(K)(2)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- infructuous
- consolidation of holdings
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4184 of 2025
Santram And 6 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Archana Singh, Prem Shankar
Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prem Shankar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"A. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the
Respondent Nos. 4-5 to send the Record of Consolidation Officer Court, District -
Jalaun U.P. in respect of the Case No. 3074, 3075 & 4442 under section 9(K)(2) of
Consolidation of Holding Act, Mauza- Bhedi Khurd, Pargana- Kalpi, District-Jalaun
- Madho Prashad and Others Versus Parsi and Others to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, District Jalaun at Orai in respect of Revision No. 910 of 1989 -
Ayodhya and Others Versus Har Narayan and Others.
B. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the
Respondent No. 3 (Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Jalaun at Orai) to
decide the Revision No. 910 of 1989 - Ayodhya and Others Versus Har Narayan and
Others after persuing the the Record of Consolidation Officer Court, District - Jalaun
U.P. in respect of the Case No. 3074, 3075 & 4442 under section 9(K)(2) of
Consolidation of Holding Act, Mauza- Bhedi Khurd, Pargana- Kalpi, District- Jalaun
- Madho Prashad and Others Versus Parsi and Others as possible as early."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of the
instant petition, the final order has been passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation and the same has been challenged by petitioners before this
WRIB No. 4184 of 2025
2
Court by way of Writ- B No.1571 of 2026, which has been entertained by
this Court.
4. Since, the final order has already been passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, as such, the prayer made in the instant petition has become
infructuous.
5. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition
is dismissed as infructuous.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
May 5, 2026
Rameez
Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…