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


Surendra & Another v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Ballia & Others - WRIT - B No. 12863 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5174 (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.28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12863 of 2006

Surendra and Another


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia & Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Shyam Narain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

At the stage of consolidation proceedings the petitioners were proposed three chaks which included major part of their original holdings. An objection under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by them raising a grievance that the first chak be demolished and plot no. 171 be taken out from their  second chak and instead plot nos. 170, 562 and 583 be allotted. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.7.2004 dismissed the objection on the ground that the first chak is proposed on plot no. 477 which is their original holding and the second chak includes major part of plot no. 170 which again is the original holding.. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 31.12.2004 partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners. The Settlement Officer Consolidation took out plots no. 171/1 and 171/2 from the chaks of the petitioners and instead allotted plots no. 556, 557, 558 and 562 in their chaks. Still not statisfied petitioners went up in revision. The revisional court vide order dated 29.12.2005 dismissed the revision. The rivisional court has also recorded a finding  all the three chaks allotted to the petitioner are on  major part of their original holding.

The Settlement Officer Consolidation while allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner considering their  grievance had taken out ''Uran' number  from their  chaks and allowed them plots no. 556, 557, 558, and 562.

In view of the findings recorded by the three courts below that all the three chaks of the petitioners are on major part of their original holdings, there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgements.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt. 3.3.2006


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.