Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BUDDHOO versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Buddhoo v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 12852 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 11569 (10 July 2007)


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.6

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  12852 of  1985

Budhdhoo     ... ... ... ......... Petitioner


The Deputy Director of Consolidation

Allahabad and others   ......... ......... .........   .....   Respondent  


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

This petition arises out chak allotment proceedings. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The demand of the petitioner was that he may be allotted a chak taking the whole of  his original plot number no. 29/2. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 15.3.1985. Copy of the Sanshodhan Talika to the order has not been annexed and it is difficult  to perceive  what changes were made by the Consolidation Officer.  The petitioner preferred an appeal. The  petitioner's demand was not accepted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 26.4.1985. The petitioner preferred a revision which was also dismissed. The petitioner's contention that he may be allotted his entire chak on pot No.29  has not been accepted  by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The finding is that near plot No. 29 there are plot Nos. 27 and 28 which are the original numbers of Sahabuddin and it is not possible to allot the entire chak of the petitioner on plot No.29.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plot No. 29/2 is his largest holding where his source of irrigation is situated and therefore the petitioner should have been allotted a single chak on that plot. However, copy of the Form CH 23 has not been filed by him. Moreover it does appear that portion of plot No. 29 has in fact been allotted to the petitioner.  The demand of the petitioner for allotment of his entire chak on plot No. 29/2 has not been accepted.  In the counter affidavit it is alleged that the petitioner has a well and not a pumping set on plot No. 29/2 and that the well is included in the petitioner's chak. The question whether the petitioner has a pumping set installed in the well is a disputed question in view of the pleadings. There is no material to show that the well is not included in the petitioner's chak. The petitioner has been allotted a chak on plot No. 29. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given good reasons for not accepting his demand for allotment of the entire plot No. 29/2 in his chak. No illegality in the order of the consolidation authorities have been brought out.  Dismissed.

Dt. 10.7.2007



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.