Allahabad High Court
RAMYAD @ RAMYAD NISHAD AND 3 OTHERSversusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR AND 10 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The Court directed the Settlement Officer to decide the pending appeal within three months by a reasoned order and disposed of the writ petition without addressing its merits.
Summary
The petitioners Ramyad @ Ramyad Nishad and three others filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, to decide appeal No. 4713 (Ramyad & others v. Nand Lal & others) under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and to maintain status‑quo over the disputed land. They also asked for an expeditious decision within the stipulated period. The standing counsel raised no objection to the direction. The Court, without commenting on the merits, ordered the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sadar, District Jaunpur to decide the appeal by a reasoned order within three months, without unnecessary adjournments, and directed that the writ petition be disposed of. The petition was therefore dismissed with the specific direction to the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the Settlement Officer to decide a pending appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act expeditiously.
- Whether a status‑quo order over the disputed land is warranted pending the decision of the appeal.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act — s. 11(1)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
- land dispute
- status quo
- expeditious decision
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 4778 of 2025
Ramyad @ Ramyad Nishad And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Jaunpur And 10
Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anjum Vishakarma, Rahul Saxena
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Learned Standing Counsel has filed a copy of the instruction today in
Court, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and
perused the record.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following
reliefs:-
" To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide appeal
no. 4713 (Ramyad and others Vs. Nand Lal and others)
under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, Village Katesar, Pargana & Tehsil Mariyahun, District
Jaunpur, pending before him, expeditiously and within the
stipulated period.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the parties to maintain status-quo over
the land in dispute."
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection, if a direction
is issued to decide the aforesaid case, expeditiously.
5. In this conspectus as above, no useful purpose would be served to keep
this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally
WRIB No. 4778 of 2025
2
dispose of the present writ petition, without making any observation on the
merits of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, with a direction to
Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sadar, District-Jaunpur (Respondent
no.2) to decide the aforesaid case strictly in accordance with law, by means
of a reasoned and speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournments to
either of the parties expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three
months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
March 19, 2026
Neetu
Digitally signed by :-
NEETU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…