Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAM DAS versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SIDDHARTH NAGAR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shyam Das v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar & Others - WRIT - B No. 26146 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9430 (11 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26146 of 2006

Shyam Das

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sidharth Nagar & Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The facts in brief are that objections filed by the petitioner claiming mutation of his name over the land in dispute on the basis of an alleged will deed, was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.2.1996. Respondents no. 3 and 4 filed an application for recall of the said order, which came to be allowed on 20.12.2002. Thereafter the petitioner filed a restoration application on the ground that the order dated 20.12.2002 was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The said application came to be dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 20.5.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 23.1.2006 has dismissed the same.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision mainly on the ground that the interest of justice demands that the dispute may be adjudicated after hearing both the parties. It is undisputed that respondents no. 3 and 4 who claim to be sons of deceased Ram Adhare were not impleaded in the objections filed by the petitioner claiming rights on the basis of the alleged will deed said to have been executed by Ram Adhare. It is also no doubt correct that the order passed in favour of the petitioner was recalled without any notice or opportunity to him. However, since respondents no. 3 and 4 are claiming to be sons of deceased Ram Adhare and challenging the will alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the petitioner it would be in the interest of justice that the dispute may be adjudicated after hearing both the parties.

I see no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Dt. 11.5.2006


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.