Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TOSEEN versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MEERUT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Toseen v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Meerut & Others - WRIT - B No. 33880 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13086 (27 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

''Court No. 5'

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33880 of 2007

 Toseen

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Kr. R. C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under.

An application 9.7.2003 was moved by father of petitioner purporting to be under Rule 109-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (for short the ''Rules') seeking correction in the records on the ground that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26.3.1969 on account of clerical mistake was wrongly incorporated in the records and final map was not prepared in consonance with the said order. Deputy Director of Consolidation referred the said application to the Consolidation Officer who registered the proceedings under Section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') and called for a report. On the basis of the reports dated 10.9.2003 and 17.10.2003 Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.11.2003 allowed the application and directed to make necessary correction in the records and map. On an application moved by respondent no. 6 order dated 22.10.2003 was recalled and proceedings were re-opened. In the meantime father of the petitioner died and was substituted by the petitioner. He moved an application dated 8.9.2004 before the Consolidation Officer that proceedings were wrongly registered under Section 42-A of the Act as the application was moved under Rule 109-A of the Rules and appropriately proceedings should be undertaken under the said Rule. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.10.2004 rejected the application on the ground that since the application was moved with prayer for making correction in the records as such proceedings were rightly registered under Section 42-A of the Act. Revision filed by the petitioner challenging the said order was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the same ground. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner wanted correction to be made under the provisions of Rule 109-A to avoid complication in future. It has further been urged that final map cannot be corrected under Section 42-A as the said section empowers corrections of mistakes which are clerical in nature, whereas the application was moved seeking correction of a wrong and incorrect incorporation of an order in the records.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

A perusal of the application moved by the father of the petitioner filed as Annexure ''6' to the writ petition goes to show that the same was moved on the ground that the order dated 26.3.1969 on account of clerical mistake has been wrongly incorporated in the revenue records and map and as such the same may be corrected. Rule 109-A provides for giving effect to orders passed by the consolidation authorities after de-notification under Section 52 of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, order was passed as long back as 1969 when the consolidation proceedings were under way. Thus, it is not a case for incorporation of any order passed after de-notification as such the provisions of Rule 109-A have no application.

In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the consolidation authorities rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to register proceedings under Rule 109-A instead of Section 42-A. The writ petition is totally devoid of any merits and accordingly fails and stands dismissed in limine.

27.7.2007.


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.