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


Smt. Arain v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar & Others - WRIT - B No. 25531 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9247 (9 May 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. 51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25531 of 2006

Smt Arain Versus D.D.C  Siddharthanagar and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner and respondent No.4 are close relations. Both of them were allotted chaks east-west in their joint holding by Assistant Consolidation Officer (A.C.O). Objections of respondent No.4 were dismissed by C.O however Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C) allowed the appeal converted the chaks of the parties from east west to north south. Against the order of S.O.C dated 27.3.2006 passed in appeal No. 276, revision was filed by the petitioner being Revision No. 924 Smt Arain Versus Vakil Ahmad which was dismissed by D.D.C on 28.4.2006 hence this writ petition.

Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C) inspected the spot by himself and prepared a map, which has been shown to me and has been placed on record. According to the map house of respondent No.4 is situate from north to south towards east and house of petitioner is situate from north to south towards west. In view of this carvation of chaks of both the parties from north to south is perfectly just as both of them have got their houses at their respective chaks. However the dispute remains in respect of the middle portion of land where a hand pump is installed. According to the petitioner hand pump belongs to her while according to the respondent No.4 hand pump belongs to him.

Writ petition is disposed of and the order passed by D.D.C dated 28.4.2006 is modified and subjected to the condition that respondent No.4 shall pay Rs. 5000/- as damages to the petitioner so that petitioner may install a hand pump in the portion allotted to her. This amount shall be paid within three months from today in the form of draft drawn in favour of the petitioner which may be given to her and on her refusal to accept the same, to her learned counsel Sri A.C Srivastava in this court. However if this amount is not paid to the petitioner by the respondent No.4 within the stipulated time then judgment and order passed by D.D.C as well as S.O.C shall stand vacated and order of C.O. shall stand restored.




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.