# Ajeet Singh v. D.D.C

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 100
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-10
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 4766 of 1984
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajeet-singh-v-d-d-c-53583
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

N.K. Rastogi, Sanjai Srivastava, Yamuna
Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned orders have been
passed
by
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation and the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in illegal and arbitrary manner, as
such the same cannot be sustained in the eye of
law

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226 - The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A(2) &
11(1)- Petitioners impleaded in appeal
and notices were issued but no claim was
set up - Courts below properly considered
the sale deed set up by the parties and
recorded finding of fact - Sale deed set up
by respondent No.4 has been properly
proved -No interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India - Petition
dismissed.

Held- Petitioners were impleaded in Appeal No.
127 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act and
notices were issued to the petitioners but no
claim was set up on behalf of petitioners as
such there was no option except to decide all
the three appeals which were clubbed and
decided together - That appellate court and
revisional court have properly considered the
sale deed set up by the parties and recorded
finding of fact that sale deed set up by
respondent No.4 is prior to the sale deed set up
by petitioners and sale deed set up by
respondent No.4 has been properly proved as
such respondent no.4 was held to be recorded
over 12/44 share of the plot in dispute which
requires no interference - Original copy of sale
deed dated 26.06.1968 has not been filed by
petitioners before Consolidation authorities -
Explanation given by petitioners for not filing
the original copy of the sale deed dated
26.06.1968 cannot be accepted in the eye of
law. (Para 10, 11 & 12) (E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950 - The Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953
7 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. D.D.C.
101
List of Keywords
Section 9-A(2) ; Section 11(1); Original copy of
sale deed not filed ; sale deed set up by
respondent properly proved;

Case Arising From
Revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act
were filed before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation which were dismissed vide order
dated 19.2.1984

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Pathak, Randhir
Singh, Shamim Ahmad Counsel for Respondent
:- N.K. Rastogi, Sanjai Srivastava, Yamuna
Pandey

Judgment/Order of the High Court

## Text

100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the event in fresh proceedings, if elected
to be pursued by the Institution. In the
event, no fresh proceedings are elected to
be taken against Nanku Ram, he will be
entitled to 50% of the arrears of his
emoluments for the period that he has
remained out of service on account of the
orders impugned.

63. There shall be no order as to
costs in both the writ petitions.

64. So far as Writ-A No.20351 of
2022 is concerned, the same shall be detagged and listed for hearing after three
months before the appropriate Bench.

65. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the District Inspector of
Schools, Prayagraj and the Manager and
the Principal of the Vikramaditya Inter
College,
Sikandra,
Prayagraj
by
the
Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 100
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 4766 of 1984

Ajeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anurag Pathak, Randhir Singh, Shamim
Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondent:
N.K. Rastogi, Sanjai Srivastava, Yamuna
Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned orders have been
passed
by
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation and the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in illegal and arbitrary manner, as
such the same cannot be sustained in the eye of
law

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
226 - The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A(2) &
11(1)- Petitioners impleaded in appeal
and notices were issued but no claim was
set up - Courts below properly considered
the sale deed set up by the parties and
recorded finding of fact - Sale deed set up
by respondent No.4 has been properly
proved -No interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India - Petition
dismissed.

Held- Petitioners were impleaded in Appeal No.
127 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act and
notices were issued to the petitioners but no
claim was set up on behalf of petitioners as
such there was no option except to decide all
the three appeals which were clubbed and
decided together - That appellate court and
revisional court have properly considered the
sale deed set up by the parties and recorded
finding of fact that sale deed set up by
respondent No.4 is prior to the sale deed set up
by petitioners and sale deed set up by
respondent No.4 has been properly proved as
such respondent no.4 was held to be recorded
over 12/44 share of the plot in dispute which
requires no interference - Original copy of sale
deed dated 26.06.1968 has not been filed by
petitioners before Consolidation authorities -
Explanation given by petitioners for not filing
the original copy of the sale deed dated
26.06.1968 cannot be accepted in the eye of
law. (Para 10, 11 & 12) (E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950 - The Uttar
Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953
7 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. D.D.C.
101
List of Keywords
Section 9-A(2) ; Section 11(1); Original copy of
sale deed not filed ; sale deed set up by
respondent properly proved;

Case Arising From
Revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act
were filed before the Deputy Director of
Consolidation which were dismissed vide order
dated 19.2.1984

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Pathak, Randhir
Singh, Shamim Ahmad Counsel for Respondent
:- N.K. Rastogi, Sanjai Srivastava, Yamuna
Pandey

Judgment/Order of the High Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Kamal
Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioners; Mr. Vinod Kumar Upadhyay
holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Srivastava,
learned counsel for respondent no. 4; and
Mr.
Ajai
Kumar
Baranwal,
learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
dispute relates to plots of khata no.54
situated in Village- Ahamadnagar alias
Mohammadi,
Tehsil-Suar,
District
-
Rampur as mentioned in the order of the
consolidation authorities. The names of
Harmel Singh, Jageer Singh, sons of
Santok Singh (respondent no. 7 & 8); Ajeet
Singh, Kartar Singh, sons of Ajaib Singh
(petitioners nos.2 and 3); Ajeet Singh, son
of Sadho Singh (petitioner no.1), Bheem
Singh, son of Ramnath Singh (respondent
no.9) Bhagwandas, son of Jawaharlal
(respondent no.5) were recorded over the
aforementioned plots in the basic year of
the consolidation operation. Against the
basic year entry of the aforementioned
plots, an objection under Section 9-A(2) of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred to as the
'U.P.C.H. Act') was filed by Amar Singh
and Jiwan Singh, sons of Saran Singh, on
the basis of registered sale deed dated
26.06.1968 alleged to be executed in their
favour in respect to 12 plots area 14-5-0 out
of 19 plots area 26-19-0. Respondent no.
4/Surjeet Singh, son of Gunda Singh, also
filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of the
U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of a registered
sale deed dated 6.3.1965, alleged to be
executed in his favour in respect to 12/44
share of the total 19 plots area 26-19-0. The
Consolidation Officer vide order dated
2.12.1981, dismissed the objection filed by
respondent no. 4/Surjeet Singh and allowed
the claim of Amar Singh and Jiwan Singh
for recording of their names on the basis of
the sale deed dated 26.6.1968. Against the
order of the Consolidation Officer dated
2.12.1981, three appeals were filed under
Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act before
the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.
Appeal No. 128 was filed by Surjeet Singh
son of Indra Singh and Appeals No. 126
and 127 were filed by the respondent no.4.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide
order dated 19.2.1982, allowed Appeals
No. 126 and 127 filed by respondent no.4
and dismissed the appeal no.128 filed by
Surjeet Son of Indra Singh modifying the
order of the Consolidation Officer to the
extent that name of respondent no.4/Surjeet
Singh son of Gunda Singh shall be
recorded as co-tenure holder to the extent
of 12/44 share in Khata No.54 and
remaining 32/44 share shall be recorded
according to the order of the Consolidation
Officer. Against the appellate order dated
19.2.1982, four revisions under Section 48
of the U.P.C.H. Act were filed before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, which
were numbered as Revision Nos. 286, 287,
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
261, and 262 filed by Ajeet Singh/ Amar
Singh. The aforementioned revisions were
clubbed and heard together by the Assistant
Director
of
Consolidation.
All
the
abovementioned revisions were dismissed
vide order dated 19.2.1984. Hence, this
writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for
following relief:-

"A: a writ, direction or order in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned orders (Annexures 2 and 3)
passed by opposite parties Nos.1 and 2.

B.
a
writ
of
mandamus
commanding the opposite parties not to
disturb the possession of petitioners over
the plots in dispute.

C. Any other suitable writ,
direction or order as this Hon'ble Court
may
deem
fit
and
proper
in
the
circumstances of the case.

D. Costs of the writ petition be
awarded to the petitioners."

3. This Court entertained the matter
on 28.3.1984 and stayed the dispossession
of the petitioners.

4. In pursuance of the order dated
28.3.1984, parties have exchanged their
pleading.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the impugned
orders have been passed by the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy
Director of Consolidation in illegal and
arbitrary manner, as such the same cannot
be sustained in the eye of law. He further
submitted that no notice or opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the petitioners by
Settlement Officer of Consolidation before
passing the impugned appellate order as
such revisions were filed before Deputy
Director of Consolidation by petitioners but
revisions
have
been
dismissed
on
misconceived grounds. He submitted that
sale deed set up by private respondents
cannot be relied upon in view of the sale
deed set up by the petitioners. He submitted
that copy of the original sale deed executed
in favour of petitioners was handed over to
the counsel for the petitioners in revision
under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act but the
same was not filed in revision as such
petitioners should not suffer for the fault of
the counsel. He submitted that true copy of
sale deed executed in favour of petitioners
is annexed along with the writ petition as
Annexure No.4 to the writ petition and
original copy of the sale deed dated
25.06.1968
is
in
possession
of
the
petitioners. He submitted that matter should
be
sent
back
before
consolidation
authorities for fresh adjudication of dispute
and petitioners will produce the original
copy of sale deed before the Consolidation
authorities in accordance with law.

6. On the other hand, learned
counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that
Gurnam Singh and Resham Singh, having
12/44 share in the property sold the entire
land to respondent no. 4 by sale deed
executed on 5.3.1965 which was registered
on 3.4.1965. He further submitted that
same land was again sold to the petitioners
in illegal manner as such petitioners could
not be given any right and title on the basis
of sale deed alleged to be executed on
25.06.1968. He further submitted that
respondent No.4 and after his death his
legal heirs are in physical possession of the
land in dispute. He submitted that appellate
jurisdiction under Section 11 (1) of
U.P.C.H. Act was properly exercised by
Settlement
officer
of
Consolidation
granting 12/44 share to respondent No.4 on
the basis of sale deed executed on
7 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. D.D.C.
103
5.3.1965/3.4.1965. He further submitted
that in appeal petitioners were impleaded
and noticed but petitioners have not set up
their case along with sale deed as such
there is no illegality in exercise of appellate
jurisdiction which has been maintained in
revision. He submitted that petitioners have
not filed the original sale deed alleged to be
executed in their favour before the
Consolidation authorities as such the claim
set up by the petitioners cannot be allowed
in
any
manner.
He
submitted
that
explanation given for not filing the original
copy of alleged sale deed cannot be
accepted as such writ petition filed by
petitioners cannot be entertained. He placed
reliance upon the following judgment in
support of his arguments:-

"1. 2019 (143) Rev Dec 215
Gausul Azam Vs. State of U.P. thru
Secretary Revenue LKO & Ors.

2. 2024 0 AIR (SC)238 Kanwar
Raj Singh (D) through LRs vs. Gejo (D)
through LRs. and others

3. 2024 (12) ADJ 298 Jamia
Urdu Aligar (Regd) vs. Jamil Urdu
Sanstha and others

4. 2000 (1) ARC 112 Saudul
Azeez vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur

5. (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases
266 Ajay Singh vs. Khacheru and others

6. 2016 (130) RD 730 Rakesh
Mohindra vs. Anita Beri and others"

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused
the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact
that title objection filed by respondent No.4
as well as Amar Singh & Jiwan Singh were
decided by Consolidation Officer rejecting
the claim of respondent No.4 but in appeal
the claim of respondent No.4 was allowed
for recording of his name on the basis of
sale deed executed on 06.03.1965. There is
also no dispute about the fact that revision
filed by petitioners were dismissed.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy involved in the matter and
reason assigned under the impugned
revisional order the perusal of the finding
of fact recorded under the impugned
revisional order will be relevant which is as
under:

न्यायालय श्री िनकभसिंह पुण्डीर, सहायक
सिंचालक चकबन्िी, गाजियाबाि।
कैम्प - रामपुर
तनगरानी सिंख्या 286 अिीत भसिंह आदि
बनाम सरिीत भसिंह आदि
तनगरानी सिंख्या 287 अिीत भसिंह आदि
बनाम सरिीत भसिंह आदि
तनगरानी सिंख्या 261 अमर भसिंह आदि
बनाम सुरिीत भसिंह आदि
तनगरानी सिंख्या 262 अमर भसिंह आदि
बनाम सुरिीत भसिंह आदि
ग्राम- अहमिनगर उफग मडडयान गोमिी
परगना - स्िार
िारा 48 िोत चकबन्िी अधितनयम
तनणगय
...................................................
.................................................

तीनों पक्षों के विद्िान अधििक्तागण
की बहस और पत्रािभलयों के अिलोकन से
मैंने पाया कक अपील नम्बर 126 ि 127 का
तथा अपील नम्बर 128 का तीनों का
तनस्तारण सिंदहत आिेश दिनााँक 19-02-82
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
द्िारा ककया गया था। अपील नम्बर 127 में
अिीत भसिंह आदि फरीक थे और अिीत
भसिंह पुत्र सािों भसिंह को नोदर्स िस्ती
तामील था। अिीत भसिंह आदि की ओर से
विद्िान चकबन्िी अधिकारी के यहााँ िी
विशेर्ष रूप से पैरिी नहीिं की गयी उसकी
ओर से बहस में यह तो बताया गया कक
उन्होंने िी दिनािंक 25-6-68 ई० को बैनामा
खरीिा था ककन्तु कोई बैनामा आदि िाखखल
नहीिं ककया। उसका यह कहना विशेर्ष महत्ि
नहीिं रखता कक उसको साक्ष्य िाखखल करने
का अिसर नहीिं भमला। यदि िास्ति में
कोई बैनामा था तो उसे तनगरानी पत्रािली
में िाखखल कर िेना चादहए था ककन्तु उसके
द्िारा ऐसा िी नहीिं ककया गया इसके
अलािा 25-6-68 को जिन व्यजक्तयों के
अधिकार िूभम में शेर्ष रह गये हों उन्होंने
अधिकार बेचा िा सकता है तथा खरीिा िा
सकता है तथा खरीििारान को उसी हि
तक अधिकार प्राप्त हो सकते हैं। बाि के
बैनामे के मुकाबले में पहले ककया हुआ
बैनामा प्रिािी होगा। यदि पहले ककया हुआ
बैनाम भसद्ि कर दिया िाता है तो बाि में
ककये हुए बैनामे का प्रिाि नहीिं रह िायेगा।
श्री सरिार भसिंह ने दि० 6-8-60 ई० को
रजिस्री शुिा बैनामा गुरमीत भसिंह आदि के
नाम मुकिमा नम्बर 180 तनभमगत दिनााँक
18-7-61 द्िारा तहसील से नाम ििग हो
गया। उक्त पत्रािली को िी तलब ककया
गया है जिससे स्पष्र् होता है कक आिार
िर्षग में खाता नम्बर 54 में िर्षग 19 गार्े
रकबा 26-19-0 सरिार भसिंह पुत्र ियलाल
भसिंह के नाम ििग थे और तहसीलिार के
आिेश
दिनााँक
22-6-60
द्िारा
खाता
िूभमिरी में ििग हुआ तथा गुरमीत भसिंह
आदि ने बैनामा के आिार पर दिनााँक 2211-60 ई० को नाम ििग करने की बाित
िाि प्रस्तुत ककया था उसका इस्तहार
दिनािंक 7-12-60 को िारी हुआ। उसमें
नम्बर 216 रकबा 3-1-0 भलखा गया था। उस
पत्रािली में लेखपाल के हस्तान्तरण ररपोर्ग
दिनााँक 20-4-61 की लगायी है उसमें िी
नम्बर 216 ब 3-1-0 ििग है और उसमें
हस्तानान्तरण ततधथ 30-6-60 भलखी है।
नकल िस्तािेि नविस्ता सरिार भसिंह बाहक
गुरमीत भसिंह आदि रजिस्री दिनािंक 30-0660 ई० से िी स्पष्र् होता है कक यही 19
नम्बर रकबा 26-19-0 का बैनामा हुआ था।
िोनों ही पक्षों को गुरमीत भसिंह आदि द्िारा
खरीिे गये बैनामे के आिार पर िूभम पर
अधिकार प्राप्त होता है इसभलए िोनों ही
फरीक सरिार भसिंह द्िारा ककये गये बैनामे
को िास्ति में मानते हैं। इस बैनामें में चैन
भसिंह ि अिमेर भसिंह ि हरनेक भसिंह ि
िागरी भसिंह ि बलिीर भसिंह का 6/44 ि
6/44 िाग दिखाया गया है इसमें गुरमीत
भसिंह आदि का 8/44 िाग दिखाया है तथा
तनरन्िन भसिंह ि गुरूिेि भसिंह ि िीर भसिंह
का 19/32/44 िाग भलखाया है। यह दहस्से
िास्ति में एक से अधिक हो िाते हैं ककन्तु
इसमें त्रुदर् नाहर भसिंह आदि के दहस्से में है
िो 19/32/44 भलखा है में ही प्रतीत होती है
7 All. Ajeet Singh Vs. D.D.C.
105
क्योंकक इसका नाम ि दहस्सा तब से िाि
में भलखा है और ऊपर भलखे नाम ि दहस्से
के बाि केिल 9/44 िाग बचता था जिसको
19/32/44 भलखा गया है। ऐसी िशा में चैन
भसिंह ि अिमेर भसिंह ि हरनेक भसिंह ि
िागीर भसिंह ि बलिीर भसिंह का पािंचों का
12/44 िाग भलया िाने में कोई त्रुदर् नहीिं
थी। दिनािंक 30-6-60 को 13 व्यजक्तयों ने
बैनामा खरीिा था यदि बैनामा में दहस्से का
वििरण नहीिं दिया गया होता तो चैन भसिंह
आदि 5 व्यजक्तयों का दहस्सा 5/13 होता
िबकक उसमें 12/44 िाग बेचा है और इस
प्रकार से 64/572 बेचा गया है जिसका
नतीिा यह तनकाला िा सकता है कक
दहस्सा 6/44 कुल 12/44 भलखा िाना सही
इन्द्राि था। बैनाम दिनााँक 19.02.1963 तथा
6-03-65
ई०
को
कातति
िेिकीनन्िन
अग्रिाल द्िारा बैनामा साबबत कराया गया
था तथा बैनामा दिनााँक 6-3-65 ई० गिाह
हाभसया पुरन भसिंह द्िारा साबबत कराया
गया है। सुरिीत भसिंह खुि ने बयान ककया
है तथा चौथा गिाह मोहर भसिंह को पेश
ककया गया है इस प्रकार से गिाहान के
व्यानात से बैनामा साबबत हो गये हैं और
इस प्रकार से सुरिीत भसिंह को दिनााँक 0603-65 ई के आिार पर कुल खाते के 12/44
िाग पर अधिकार प्राप्त हो गये। खाते के
12 नम्बरान जिनका कक बैनामा दिनााँक 266-68 ई० को अमर भसिंह ि िीिन भसिंह ने
खरीिा उसमें चैनभसिंह आदि का हक नहीिं
रह गया था इसभलए शेर्ष 32/44 पर ही
अमर भसिंह ि िीिन भसिंह आदि को हक
प्राप्त हुए। श्री अिीत भसिंह आदि द्िारा
बहस के समय अमर भसिंह ि िीिन भसिंह
के विरूद्ि कुछ नहीिं कहा गया िबकक
अमर भसिंह ि िीिन भसिंह के हक में 26-668 ई० को बैनामा हुआ और अिीत भसिंह
आदि तनगरानी कतागण की तनगरानी 286
ि 287 की ओर से पहले बैनामा दिनााँक 256-68 ई का होना बताया है। इस प्रकार से
अिीत भसिंह आदि की ओर से प्रस्तुत
तनगरानी आिारहीन है और अमर भसिंह
आदि की ओर से प्रस्तुत तनगरानी िी
आिारहीन है। विद्िान बन्िोबस्त अधिकारी
चकबन्िी द्िारा पाररत आिेश मेरे विचार से
सही हैं और उसमें ककसी प्रकार के पररितगन
की आिश्यकता नहीिं है।
आिेश

उपरोक्त वििेचना के अनुसार चारों
तनगरातनयााँ खाररि की िाती हैं। यही
आिेश तनगरानी सिंख्या 287, 261, 262 पर
िी मान्य होगा। पत्रािभलयााँ िाि अमल
िरामि िाखखल िफ्तर की िािें।
िनक भसिंह पुण्डीर
सहायक सिंचालक चकबन्िी,
गाजियाबाि
दिनााँक 9-2-1984 ई०
कैम्प- रामपुर।

10. Perusal of the impugned revisional
order as quoted above fully demonstrate that
petitioners were impleaded in Appeal No. 127
under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act and
notices were issued to the petitioners but no claim
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was set up on behalf of petitioners as such there
was no option except to decide all the three
appeals which were clubbed and decided together.

11. The perusal of impugned revisional
order further demonstrate that appellate court and
revisional court have properly considered the sale
deed set up by the parties and recorded finding of
fact that sale deed set up by respondent No.4 is
prior to the sale deed set up by petitioners and sale
deed set up by respondent No.4 has been properly
proved as such respondent no.4 was held to be
recorded over 12/44 share of the plot in dispute
which requires no interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

12. It is also material to mention that
original copy of sale deed dated 26.06.1968 has
not been filed by petitioners before Consolidation
authorities as such adverse inference was drawn
by Consolidation authorities. The explanation
given by petitioners for not filing the original copy
of the sale deed dated 26.06.1968 cannot be
accepted in the eye of law and litigation cannot be
sent back before consolidation authorities for
further adjudication of dispute so that litigation
may go on for another 50 years.

13. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, no case for interference
is made out against the impugned orders passed
by Consolidation authorities in the title
proceeding.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 106
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 38881 of 2019

Anubhav Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohammad Waseem

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Prabhakar Tripathi

Issue for consideration
Pertains to rejection of issuance of passport;
legality of impugned order dated 12.06.2019
passed by the respondent no.2.

Headnotes
Passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of
the passport- on the ground of pendency of the
criminal appeal-pending criminal case pertains
to disputes of private or matrimonial in nature-
cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on
the ground of pendency of the criminal appealpassport authority has acted beyond the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-W.P.
disposed. (E-9)
Case Law Cited
1.
Vangala
Kasturi
Rangacharyulu
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 3549
2. Basoo Yadav Versus Union of India, 2022 SCC
OnLine All 849

List of Acts
Nil
List of Keywords