Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARIHAR versus CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER OFFICIATING D.D.C. AND OTHERS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harihar v. Chief Revenue Officer Officiating D.D.C. And Others. - WRIT - B No. 14959 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6624 (27 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                             

Reserved

   

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.    14959 of 2005

Harihar..........................................................................Petitioner

Vs.

Chief Revenue Officer,

Officiating Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Azamgarh and others............................................Respondents

Hon. S.N. Srivastava, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated  25.2.2005, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh allowing revision of contesting Opp. party nos. 3 to 7 by which Plot no.60, original holding of contesting Opp. party nos. 3 to 7 was allotted to them by excluding from Chak no.286/A of petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for contesting Opp. parties.

Learned counsel for petitioner urged that impugned order suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record inasmuch as Plot no.60 consists of private source of irrigation of petitioner and by the impugned order petitioner's area was reduced by excluding .960 air and allotting .630 air in his Chak which is more than 25%.  He further urged that impugned order is liable to be quashed.  

In reply to the same, learned counsel for contesting Opp. parties urged that Plot no.60 was original holding of contesting Opp. parties which was rightly allotted to them by Deputy Director of Consolidation.  Petitioner was allotted Chak more than 25% of his original holding which was rightly reduced within the prescribed limit under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.  He further urged that as Plot no.60  is original holding of contesting Opp. parties, the argument of petitioner of having his private source of irrigation of petitioner was rightly not accepted by the authorities below.  In case petitioner has established Tubewell after allotment, it will not give any right to him.

Considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the materials on record.

It transpires from the materials on record that at the stage of Assistant Consolation Officer petitioner was allotted two Chaks on his original Plot no.50, .350 air and on plot no.43, 0.135 air, total area 484 air.  This order was modified at the stage of Consolidation Officer by allotting first Chak on Plot nos. 43 and 50, .838 air and second Chak on plot no.60, .140 air, total area 978 air. This order was reversed in Appeal by the order of Assistnat Settlement Officer, Consolidation by excluding Plot nos. 43 and 50, .274 air and allotting Plot no.60, area .960 air.  Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order reversed the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and allotted this original Plot no.60 to contesting Opp. parties taking out from petitioner's Chak and allotting Plot nos. 106, 162 and 174 in petitioner's Chak.  It is further clear from the record that Plot no.60 was original holding of Kashi Prasad, father of contesting Opp. parties, which was valued at the rate of 20 paise.  This plot was not allotted to contesting Opp. parties at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, but at the stage of Consolidation Officer, contesting Opp. parties were allotted their original Plot nos.60, area .960 air alongwith some other plots.     By the impugned order, said order was reversed and original holding of petitioner was allotted to him.  From perusal of the record, it also transpires that impugned order was rightly passed in accordance with law and original Plot no.60, area .960 air was allotted in the Chak of contesting Opp. parties.  By the impugned order, the total area of petitioner's Chak was reduced within 25% in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.  Petitioner is not aggrieved at all by the impugned order.  By the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation petitioner got more than 25% of his original holding.  The order was rightly passed in strict compliance of principles of Section 19-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.  Petitioner has no right to claim Plot no.60 which is admittedly original holding of contesting Opp. parties on which petitioner cannot get any right on the basis of installation of Tubewell after the allotment was made.  He may remove his private source of irrigation from Plot no.60.  

There is no error of law apparent on the face of record.  Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

March 27,2006

bgs/-


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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