Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMALUDDIN versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, JAUNPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kamaluddin v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Jaunpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 35710 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13641 (7 August 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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35710 of 2007

 Kamaluddin

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Ms. Vibha Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. C. Kishan Srivastava appearing for contesting respondent no. 4.

Respondent no. 4 filed an application under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') for being recorded as heir and legal representative of  deceased  Faujdar on the basis of the alleged ''Will' deed said to have been executed in his favour. Proceedings were contested by the petitioner who claims to have purchased certain area of the plot in dispute from recorded tenure holder Faujdar. During pendency of the proceedings, petitioner moved an application seeking amendment in  the objection on the ground that on account of mistaken legal advice the objection is stated to have been filed under section 12, it should be amended and treated as objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.2.1997 allowed the amendment on payment of Rs.20/- as costs. After accepting the costs, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed. Revision filed by him was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Amendment was sought on the ground that on account of mistaken legal advice, objection was filed under Section 12 of the Act whereas it should have been filed under Section 9-A (2) of the Act. By the said amendment neither there is any change in the nature of the proceedings nor the proposed amendment can be said to cause any prejudice to the petitioner.

In view of the above, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities.

Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.

7.8.2007.


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.