Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ISMAIL versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ismail v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 14860 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6740 (28 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

Hon. S.N. Srivastava, J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

From perusal of the record, it transpires that in appeal preferred by petitioner, Appellate authority, on prayer made by petitioner, reduced valuation of Plot nos. 275, 276 and 278 from 80 Paise to 60 Paise against which  revision preferred by one Bhure was allowed and matter was remanded to Settlement Officer, Consolidation to consider and decide the matter relating to valuation after spot inspection.  Parties were directed to appear before Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 14.2.2006 for further proceedings.  It further transpires from the record that Appellate authority has not recorded any reason for reducing valuation of certain plots allotted in petitioner's Chak.  C.H.From-23 of petitioner makes it clear that except Plot no. 276 other plots including Plot no. 275 allotted in petitioner's Chak by the order of Consolidation Officer are not original holding of petitioner.

Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules framed thereunder certain requirements are to be followed before fixing valuation of plots.  It is expected that Appellate authority shall consider and follow those requirements under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules framed thereunder while determining valuation of plots after making spot inspection and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

As parties will get fresh opportunity before Settlement Officer, Consolidation before fixation of valuation, petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party as valuation of plots was reduced on his prayer, which shall be determined afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with the direction to Appellate authority/Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the Appeal in accordance with law by a speaking order considering the observations made in the body of this judgment within three months' from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

28.3.2006

bgs/-14860


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.