{"id":247792,"date":"2010-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-14T04:24:21","modified_gmt":"2015-07-13T22:54:21","slug":"bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; &#8230; on 9 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; &#8230; on 9 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">Court\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00ad\u00a040\n\nCase\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0WRIT\u00a0\u00ad\u00a0B\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00ad\u00a03135\u00a0of\u00a02006\n\nPetitioner\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Bhoore\nRespondent\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Dy.\u00a0Director\u00a0Of\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0&amp;\u00a0Others\nPetitioner\u00a0Counsel\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Rameshwar\u00a0Nath,Ashish\u00a0Jaiswal\nRespondent\u00a0Counsel\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0C.S.C.,H.L.\u00a0Pandey\n\nHon'ble\u00a0Satya\u00a0Poot\u00a0Mehrotra,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                                Order\u00a0on<br \/>\n   Civil\u00a0Misc.\u00a0(Restoration)\u00a0Application\u00a0No.\u00a0144076\u00a0of\u00a02010<\/p>\n<p>     Counter\u00a0Affidavit\u00a0on\u00a0behalf\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0respondent\u00a0no.\u00a06\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nreply\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0afore\u00admentioned\u00a0Restoration\u00a0Application\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0<br \/>\nfiled\u00a0today.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">     Shri \u00a0 Randhir \u00a0 Jain, \u00a0 holding \u00a0 brief \u00a0 for \u00a0 Shri \u00a0 Rameshwar\u00a0<br \/>\nNath, \u00a0 learned \u00a0 counsel \u00a0 for \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner \u00a0 states \u00a0 that \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\npetitioner\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0propose\u00a0to\u00a0file\u00a0any\u00a0Rejoinder\u00a0Affidavit.\u00a0<br \/>\nTherefore, \u00a0 the \u00a0 afore\u00admentioned \u00a0 Restoration \u00a0 Application \u00a0 is\u00a0<br \/>\nbeing\u00a0taken\u00adup\u00a0for\u00a0consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">     By \u00a0 the \u00a0 Order \u00a0 dated \u00a0 21.4.2010, \u00a0 the \u00a0 Writ \u00a0 Petition \u00a0 was\u00a0<br \/>\ndismissed\u00a0for\u00a0want\u00a0of\u00a0prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">     It \u00a0 was \u00a0 further \u00a0 observed \u00a0 that \u00a0 Interim \u00a0 Order, \u00a0 if \u00a0 any,\u00a0<br \/>\nstood\u00a0vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">     The \u00a0 aforementioned \u00a0 Restoration \u00a0 Application \u00a0 has \u00a0 been\u00a0<br \/>\nfiled\u00a0on\u00a012.5.2010,\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0is\u00a0thus\u00a0within\u00a0time.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">      It \u00a0 is, \u00a0 inter\u00adalia, \u00a0 prayed \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 aforementioned\u00a0<br \/>\nRestoration\u00a0Application\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0Order\u00a0dated\u00a021.4.2010\u00a0<br \/>\nbe \u00a0 recalled, \u00a0 and \u00a0 the \u00a0 Writ \u00a0 Petition \u00a0 be \u00a0 restored \u00a0 to \u00a0 its\u00a0<br \/>\noriginal\u00a0number.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">      The\u00a0aforementioned\u00a0Restoration\u00a0Application\u00a0is\u00a0supported\u00a0<br \/>\nby\u00a0an\u00a0Affidavit,\u00a0sworn\u00a0by\u00a0Bhoore\u00a0(petitioner).\u00a0Paragraphs\u00a0no.\u00a0<br \/>\n3 \u00a0 and \u00a0 5 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 said \u00a0 affidavit \u00a0 filed \u00a0 in \u00a0 support \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nRestoration\u00a0Application\u00a0are\u00a0quoted\u00a0below:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>      &#8220;3. \u00a0 That \u00a0 it \u00a0 appears \u00a0 the \u00a0 case \u00a0 was \u00a0 listed \u00a0 in \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\n      daily \u00a0 cause \u00a0 list \u00a0 on \u00a0 21.4.2010 \u00a0 in \u00a0 court \u00a0 no. \u00a0 40 \u00a0<br \/>\n      before\u00a0the\u00a0Hon&#8217;ble\u00a0S.P.\u00a0Mehrotra,\u00a0J.\u00a0but\u00a0the\u00a0same \u00a0<br \/>\n      could \u00a0 not \u00a0 be \u00a0 marked \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 clerk \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0<br \/>\n      petitioner&#8217;s\u00a0counsel\u00a0as\u00a0such\u00a0the\u00a0counsel\u00a0could\u00a0not\u00a0<br \/>\n      appear \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Hon&#8217;ble \u00a0 Court \u00a0 on \u00a0 21.4.2010 \u00a0 and \u00a0<br \/>\n      the \u00a0 Hon&#8217;ble \u00a0 Court \u00a0 was \u00a0 pleased \u00a0 to \u00a0 dismissed \u00a0 the \u00a0<br \/>\n      writ\u00a0petition\u00a0for\u00a0want\u00a0of\u00a0prosecution.&#8221;<br \/>\n      &#8220;5. \u00a0 That \u00a0 it \u00a0 appears \u00a0 the \u00a0 case \u00a0 was \u00a0 listed \u00a0 in \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\n      daily \u00a0 cause \u00a0 list \u00a0 as \u00a0 peremptorily \u00a0 due \u00a0 to \u00a0 illness \u00a0<br \/>\n      slip \u00a0 sent \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 counsel \u00a0 for \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner \u00a0 on \u00a0<br \/>\n      5.4.2010. \u00a0 It \u00a0 is \u00a0 stated \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 counsel \u00a0 for \u00a0 the \u00a0<br \/>\n      petitioner \u00a0 Shri \u00a0 Rameshwar \u00a0 Nath \u00a0 who \u00a0 has \u00a0 to \u00a0 argue \u00a0<br \/>\n      the \u00a0 present \u00a0 case \u00a0 remained \u00a0 ill, \u00a0 in \u00a0 such \u00a0 situation \u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      he\u00a0has\u00a0to\u00a0sent\u00a0illness\u00a0slip\u00a0therefore\u00a0it\u00a0cannot\u00a0be \u00a0<br \/>\n      said \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner \u00a0 has \u00a0 adopted \u00a0 delaying \u00a0<br \/>\n      tactics\u00a0to\u00a0linger\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0writ\u00a0petition.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_7\">     The \u00a0 above\u00adquoted \u00a0 paragraphs \u00a0 no. \u00a0 3 \u00a0 and \u00a0 5 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\naforesaid\u00a0Affidavit,\u00a0have\u00a0been\u00a0replied\u00a0to\u00a0in\u00a0paragraphs\u00a0no.\u00a04\u00a0<br \/>\nand\u00a06\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Counter\u00a0Affidavit\u00a0filed\u00a0today\u00a0on\u00a0behalf\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nrespondent\u00a0no.6.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">     Paragraphs\u00a0no.\u00a04\u00a0and\u00a06\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0Counter\u00a0Affidavit\u00a0are\u00a0<br \/>\nreproduced\u00a0below:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>            &#8220;4.\u00a0That\u00a0the\u00a0contents\u00a0of\u00a0paragraph\u00a0nos.\u00a02\u00a0and \u00a0<br \/>\n      3 \u00a0 of \u00a0 affidavit \u00a0 need \u00a0 no \u00a0 reply, \u00a0 being \u00a0 matter \u00a0 of \u00a0<br \/>\n      records.\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>           6.That\u00a0the\u00a0contents\u00a0of\u00a0paragraph\u00a0no.\u00a05\u00a0of\u00a0the \u00a0<br \/>\n      affidavit,\u00a0need\u00a0no\u00a0reply.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_9\">      It \u00a0 will \u00a0 thus \u00a0 be \u00a0 noticed \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 averments \u00a0 made \u00a0 in\u00a0<br \/>\nparagraphs\u00a0no.\u00a03\u00a0and\u00a05\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0aforesaid\u00a0Affidavit\u00a0filed\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nsupport \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 aforementioned \u00a0Restoration \u00a0Application, \u00a0 have\u00a0<br \/>\nnot \u00a0 been \u00a0 denied \u00a0 in \u00a0 paragraphs \u00a0 no. \u00a0 4 \u00a0 and \u00a0 6 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Counter\u00a0<br \/>\nAffidavit\u00a0filed\u00a0on\u00a0behalf\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0respondent\u00a0no.6.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">      Having \u00a0 regard \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 averments \u00a0 made \u00a0 in \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\naforementioned \u00a0 Restoration \u00a0 Application \u00a0 and \u00a0 its \u00a0 supporting\u00a0<br \/>\nAffidavit, \u00a0 particularly \u00a0 in \u00a0 Paragraphs \u00a0 3 \u00a0 and \u00a0 5 \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 said\u00a0<br \/>\nAffidavit, \u00a0 which \u00a0 have \u00a0 not \u00a0 been \u00a0 denied \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 Counter\u00a0<br \/>\nAffidavit,\u00a0and\u00a0keeping\u00a0in\u00a0view\u00a0the\u00a0facts\u00a0stated\u00a0above,\u00a0I\u00a0am\u00a0<br \/>\nsatisfied\u00a0 that \u00a0 sufficient\u00a0 cause\u00a0 has \u00a0been\u00a0 made\u00a0 out \u00a0for\u00a0 non\u00ad<br \/>\nappearance\u00a0on\u00a0behalf\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0petitioners\u00a0on\u00a021.4.2010\u00a0when\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\ncase \u00a0 was \u00a0 taken\u00adup \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Court, \u00a0 and \u00a0 was \u00a0 dismissed \u00a0 for\u00a0<br \/>\nwant\u00a0of\u00a0prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">     In \u00a0 view \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 above, \u00a0 the \u00a0 aforementioned \u00a0 Restoration\u00a0<br \/>\nApplication \u00a0 deserves \u00a0 to \u00a0 be \u00a0 allowed, \u00a0 and \u00a0 the \u00a0 same \u00a0 is\u00a0<br \/>\naccordingly\u00a0allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">      The\u00a0Writ\u00a0Petition\u00a0is\u00a0restored\u00a0to\u00a0its\u00a0original\u00a0number.<br \/>\n     The \u00a0 Status\u00adquo \u00a0 Order, \u00a0 as \u00a0 contained \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 Order \u00a0 dated\u00a0<br \/>\n28.5.2010,\u00a0will\u00a0continue\u00a0to\u00a0remain\u00a0in\u00a0operation\u00a0till\u00a0the\u00a0next\u00a0<br \/>\ndate\u00a0of\u00a0listing.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">     The \u00a0 Writ \u00a0 Petition \u00a0 will \u00a0 now \u00a0 be \u00a0 listed \u00a0 before \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nappropriate\u00a0Bench.\u00a0It\u00a0will\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0treated\u00a0as\u00a0tied\u00adup\u00a0or\u00a0part\u00ad<br \/>\nheard\u00a0with\u00a0me.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">Dt.\u00a09.7.2010<br \/>\nAjeet.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; &#8230; on 9 July, 2010 Court\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00ad\u00a040 Case\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0WRIT\u00a0\u00ad\u00a0B\u00a0No.\u00a0\u00ad\u00a03135\u00a0of\u00a02006 Petitioner\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Bhoore Respondent\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Dy.\u00a0Director\u00a0Of\u00a0Consolidation\u00a0&amp;\u00a0Others Petitioner\u00a0Counsel\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0Rameshwar\u00a0Nath,Ashish\u00a0Jaiswal Respondent\u00a0Counsel\u00a0:\u00ad\u00a0C.S.C.,H.L.\u00a0Pandey Hon&#8217;ble\u00a0Satya\u00a0Poot\u00a0Mehrotra,J. Order\u00a0on Civil\u00a0Misc.\u00a0(Restoration)\u00a0Application\u00a0No.\u00a0144076\u00a0of\u00a02010 Counter\u00a0Affidavit\u00a0on\u00a0behalf\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0respondent\u00a0no.\u00a06\u00a0in\u00a0 reply\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0afore\u00admentioned\u00a0Restoration\u00a0Application\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0 filed\u00a0today. Shri \u00a0 Randhir \u00a0 Jain, \u00a0 holding \u00a0 brief \u00a0 for \u00a0 Shri \u00a0 Rameshwar\u00a0 Nath, \u00a0 learned \u00a0 counsel \u00a0 for \u00a0 the \u00a0 petitioner \u00a0 states [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-13T22:54:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; &#8230; on 9 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-13T22:54:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":590,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-13T22:54:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; &#8230; on 9 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-13T22:54:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; &#8230; on 9 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-13T22:54:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010"},"wordCount":590,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010","name":"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; ... on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-13T22:54:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhoore-vs-dy-director-of-consolidation-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhoore vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation &amp; &#8230; on 9 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247792\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}