AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 194 wordsRajiv Sharma, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though he raised a preliminary objection before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the appeal is not maintainable, but the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is not deciding the preliminary objection, to which Mr. Janardhan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that by means of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 4443 (MS) of 2008, this Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh application for early disposal of the case, upon which the authority concerned will pass appropriate order.
Keeping the above aspects in mind, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and decide the preliminary objections, in accordance with law, raised by the petitioner, while disposing of the appeal finally, as directed earlier. It is also provided that the appeal shall be decided within a maximum period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.