Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GIRIJA BAI versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, LALITPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Girija Bai v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Lalitpur & Others - WRIT - B No. - 34565 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14759 (31 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 AT ALLAHABAD

''Court No. 5'

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34565 of 2007

Girija Bai

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lalitpur and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

By means of the impugned order Deputy Director of Consolidation remanded the case back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the same afresh on merits after making spot inspection. Dispute between the parties was in respect of plot no. 223. An objection was filed by petitioner and respondent no. 4 that they were tenure holder in possession of plot no. 273/1 area 0.03 acres but on account of mistake sub division of the said plot was made as such plot no. 273/1 be recorded in their names. Another objection was filed by Har Govind on the ground that he was in possession of plot no. 273/5 on the basis of lease granted in his favour and as such plot no. 273/5/1 area 0.110 be recorded in his name. Consolidation Officer though held that there exists a house and KHALIHAN of the petitioner over plot no. 273/5 area 0.120 but in the record she is recovered over only an area of 0.120 and as such she is entitled to an area 0.042 more and allowed her objection and the objection filed by Har Govind was dismissed. Har Govind filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Respondent no. 2 challenged the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. By the impugned order revision was allowed and the case was remanded back mainly on the ground that Consolidation Officer has wrongly and illegally allowed an area of 0.042 to the petitioner even though she was recorded at a lesser area. He further found that objection filed by Har Govind was illegally and wrongly rejected. I find no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the case back.

Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

31.7.2007.


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.