Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Manphool & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 55672 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 20706 (7 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55672 of   2003

Manphool & others vs. State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

This petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding. The facts as set out in the writ petition are as under :

Against the proposed allotment, petitioner filed an objection which was allowed. One Bansi Lal who has not been impleaded in the writ petition and respondent no.3 filed an appeal which was dismissed. Petitioners have neither filed the copy of the two judgments along with the writ petition nor have given any detail or even the dates of the two judgments. It has further been stated that respondent no.3 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide impugned order dated 31.5.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this court.

The main ground of challenge is that by the impugned order single chak of the petitioners has been divided in two parts and no opportunity of hearing was given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order has been obtained fraudulently. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to substantiate any of the grounds from any material on record.

A perusal of the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as well as respondent no.3 were co-sharer and the chak allotted to the petitioners was much more than their share in the original holding whereas the chak allotted to the respondent no.3 was of much lesser area than his share in the holding. He accordingly, made adjustment by which both the parties have been given area of original holding in accordance with their share. From a perusal of the entire records, it is clear that the petitioners have not been allotted two chaks nor revisional order was passed without hearing them and thus the grounds of objection to the impugned judgment raised by the petitioners are not liable to be sustained. There is no force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed in limine.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.