# Subhas Singh & Ors v. D.D.C., Ambedkarnagar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-12
- **Case number:** Consolidation No. 17525 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subhas-singh-ors-v-d-d-c-ambedkarnagar-ors-47187
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Section 9-A - UP CH Rules, 1954 - Rule
109 - Execution of the order of Settlement
Officer of Consolidation proceeded
-
Interim order against this proceeding
granted, but subsequently it was not
extended on the ground that the matter is
ripe for final hearing - No cogent reason -
Validity - Held, discontinuing an interim
order granted earlier cannot be done
merely because it was exparte or that the
case is ripe for final hearing - Obviously
interim order must have been granted
earlier to preserve the nature of disputed
property, therefore there should be some
cogent reason recorded for vacation or
non extension of same - Impugned Order
not extending the interim order quashed.
(Para 6, 7 and 10)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

8 All. Subhas Singh & Ors. Vs. D.D.C., Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
211
transfer applicant/opposite party No.4 in any
manner. Allowing the transfer application
merely on such a averments is being frowned
upon. The impugned order does not even
indicate that the averments made in the
transfer application have been prima facie
proved by the transfer application.

13. In view of aforesaid judgments, it is
quite clear that the impugned order is clearly
unsustainable and therefore a writ in the
nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the
impugned order dated 18th February, 2020
passed in transfer application No. 725 of
2019
under
Section
65(2)
of
the
Consolidation of Holdings Act passed by the
Consolidation
Commissioner,
U.P.,
Lucknow.

14. In view of aforesaid, the writ
succeeds and is allowed. Parties shall bear
their own cost.
----------
(2021)08ILR A211
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Consolidation No. 17525 of 2021

Subhas Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C., Ambedkarnagar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Yogesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh

A. UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
- Section 9-A - UP CH Rules, 1954 - Rule
109 - Execution of the order of Settlement
Officer of Consolidation proceeded
-
Interim order against this proceeding
granted, but subsequently it was not
extended on the ground that the matter is
ripe for final hearing - No cogent reason -
Validity - Held, discontinuing an interim
order granted earlier cannot be done
merely because it was exparte or that the
case is ripe for final hearing - Obviously
interim order must have been granted
earlier to preserve the nature of disputed
property, therefore there should be some
cogent reason recorded for vacation or
non extension of same - Impugned Order
not extending the interim order quashed.
(Para 6, 7 and 10)
Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioners, learned State Counsel for
opposite party No.1 and Mr. Mohan Singh
learned counsel for opposite party No.16.
In view of order being passed, notices to
opposite parties 2 to 15 stand dispensed
with.

2. Petitioners have challenged the
order dated 9th March, 2021 passed in
revision No. 629/1027 whereby the interim
order granted earlier has not been extended.
It is submitted that private opposite parties
had filed petition under section 9(A) of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act which was
allowed and against which the petitioners
had filed an appeal before the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation which was also
dismissed vide order dated 11th February,
2021 which was challenged by the
petitioners in revision before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation. It is submitted
that initially vide order dated 2nd March,
2021, interim orders were passed in
revision staying proceedings pending in
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
terms of Rule 109 of the Rules framed
under the Act. The next date fixed was 6th
March, 2021 but the matter was actually
heard on 9th March, 2021 but the interim
order granted earlier was not extended.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that a perusal of the impugned
order will indicate that absolutely no
reasons have been recorded for not
extending the interim order which even
otherwise would have net result of vacating
the interim order granted earlier. It is also
submitted that once the proceedings under
section 9-A of the Act have yet not
concluded and revision against the orders
passed by the Consolidation Officer and the
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation
is
pending consideration before the Deputy
Director of Consolidation in revision, there
was no occasion for the non extension of
the interim order.

4. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite parties on the other
hand has submitted that a perusal of the
impugned order will make it apparent that
the matter has been fixed for the next date
to be heard on merits and therefore there
was
no
occasion
to
entertain
any
application for extension of interim relief
particularly since the matter is now ripe for
being decided finally.

5. Considering the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
material on record and particularly upon
perusal of the impugned order, it is
apparent that earlier at the time of filing of
revision, the revisional court had passed an
interim order dated 2nd March, 2021
staying the proceedings pending under Rule
109 of the Rules framed under the Act. The
next date fixed was 6th March, 2021 on
which date the matter could not be heard
and was actually thereafter heard on 9th
March, 2021 when the impugned order has
been passed. The impugned order merely
states that the matter is ripe for final
hearing and therefore there is no occasion
to hear the application for interim relief.

6. It is apparent that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has not at all
adverted to the fact that earlier at the time
of entertaining the revision, an interim
order
had
been
passed
staying
the
proceedings pending under Rule 109 of the
Rules framed under the Act. It is also
apparent that the interim order granted
earlier has not been extended merely on the
ground that the matter is ripe for final
hearing. In the considered opinion of this
Court, it was incumbent upon the Deputy
Director of Consolidation to have recorded
a clear finding as to how continuation of
the interim order granted earlier would be
detrimental to opposite party particularly
when the effect of non extension of interim
order would be automatic vacation of
interim order granted earlier. Discontinuing
an interim order granted earlier can not be
merely because it was exparte or that the
case is ripe for final hearing.

7. Obviously interim order must have
been granted earlier to preserve the nature
of disputed property, therefore there should
be some cogent reason recorded for
vacation or non extension of same.

8. It is also a relevant factor that the
proceedings under Rule 109 of the Rules
framed under the Act were in the nature of
execution pertaining to the order passed by
the Consolidation Officer. Once the order
passed by the Consolidation officer himself
was under challenge before the revisional
court and the revisional court was seized of
the matter, it was but natural to have stayed
8 All. Satya Prakash & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
213
the operation of consequential proceedings
pending under Rule 109 of the Rules
framed under the Act. The Deputy Director
of Consolidation has not at all considered
the consequences of non extension of
interim order granted earlier in the revision.
Even otherwise from the perusal of the
impugned order it is apparent that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation has not at
all applied his mind to the matter pertaining
to extension of interim order.

9. Upon applicability of the aforesaid
facts in the present circumstances, it is
apparent that no cogent reasons whatsoever
have been indicated by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation for not extending the
interim order granted earlier. As such the
order is clearly vitiated.

10. Consequently a writ in the nature
of Certiorari is issued quashing the
impugned order dated 9th March, 2021
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation in revision No. 629/1027
(Subhash Singh and others versus Abu
Talha and others). A further writ in the
nature of Mandamus is issued extending
the benefit of the interim order dated 2nd
March, 2021 passed earlier in revisional
proceedings till the final decision in the
revision.

11. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the writ petition stands
allowed at the admission stage itself.
----------
(2021)08ILR A213
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 1774 of 2012
and
Criminal Appeal No. 1778 of 2012

Satya Prakash & Anr. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Rakesh Pathak, R.P. Misra, Ravi Dutt Misra,
U.K. Pandey, Vishnu Dev Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Diwakar Singh, Ram Saran
Awasthi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 389- Section
439- Filing of Successive Bail Applications-
Under section 439 of the Code, successive
bail applications would be permissible to
be moved even after rejection of the
earlier bail application for the reason that
situation
during
the
course
of
investigation and trial keep on changing
depending on the discovery/exploration of
evidence or adducing the evidence -
Moving
successive
bail
applications,
where
earlier
application
has
been
rejected on merits in pending appeal,
under section 389 of the Code would not
be permissible for the reason that in case
successive bail applications are heard,
such hearing may amount to review of the
earlier order whereby the prayer for bail
moved by the same appellant stands
rejected
on
merits.
Such
review
in
criminal
proceedings
is
not
legally
permissible - The order passed disposing
of
an
application
for
bail
is
an
interlocutory order, in the opinion of the
Court under certain circumstances the
successive bail applications in the pending
appeal can be considered, however, the
scope of entertaining successive bail
applications in the pending appeal is
extremely narrow.

Successive bail applications, u/s 439 of the Cr.Pc
can be filed on the ground of subsequent facts
and change in circumstances, however once a
bail application u/s 389 of the Code is rejected