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


Purusottam Giri v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Bulandshahar & Others - WRIT - B No. 12458 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5117 (3 March 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. 12458 of 2006

Purushottam Giri..................................................Petitioner


Deputy Director Consolidation Bulandshahre and ors...Respondents.

Hon.S.N.Srivastava, J.

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 27.1.2006, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahar-Opp. party no.1.

It may be prefaced here that initially it was noticed in the case that the Vakalatnama filed by the petitioner did not contain requisite details as per Rules of the Court. The learned counsel was called upon on 28.2.2006 to remove the defects. The defects have since been removed. The order on that aspect has been passed separately today.

It would appear from the record that petitioner was proposed Chak at two places by Assistant Consolidation Officer.  On objection filed by petitioner, Consolidation Officer allotted one Chak on petitioner's original holding, i.e., Plot no. 387/1.  This order was affirmed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, but Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the order and allotted petitioner's Chak on different plots excluding his original Plot no. 387/1. This also resulted in reduction of the area of petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for Caveator-Opp. parties.

Learned counsel for petitioner urged that petitioner may be allotted his Chak on his original Plot no. 387/1.  He further urged that petitioner has no concern with Plot no.388 on which Opp. parties are claiming Samadhi of their family members.  Learned counsel further urged that Plot no. 387/1, total area 1.155 Hectare was allotted to petitioner with consent of petitioner's co-tenure holders.  This Chak cannot be disturbed without any reason or meeting out the reasons recorded by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

In reply to the same, learned counsel for Caveator-Opp. parties urged that as in Opp. parties' original Plot no. 388  Samadhi of their family members as well as their private source of irrigation exists, the order allotting this plot to Opp. parties was rightly made in accordance with law.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, considering that since petitioner has no objection in case total area of Plot no.388 is allotted to Opp. parties  by Deputy Director of Consolidation in their Chak and that Plot no.387/1, which is original holding of petitioner on which he was allotted Chak upto the stage of Settlement Officer, Consolidation is allotted to him and also considering that Opp. parties also want their original Plot no. 388 consisting of their private source of irrigation as well as Samadhi of their family members to be allotted in their Chak, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation afresh.  The petitioner is permitted to move a fresh application before Deputy Director of Consolidation for passing an order in the matter of allotment of Chaks afresh considering observations made in this judgment and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In case any such application is filed within a period of three weeks' from today, the same shall be heard and decided within a month thereafter after hearing both the parties.

Any order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on petitioner's application shall be subject to further orders passed by this Court in the writ petition.

List this matter on 7.7.2006

Till 7.7.2006, the carvation of Chak in pursuance of the impugned order dated 27.1.2006, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr shall remain stayed.




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.