Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jagjeet Singh v. D.D.C. Mau And Others - WRIT - B No. - 56559 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 14761 (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).


Court No.5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56559 of 2005

Jagjeet Singh. Vs. Deputy Director Consolidation,

Mau and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The writ petition relates to chak allotment. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the petition that at the stage of the Assistant Consolidation Officer the petitioner chak holder 126 was proposed allotment of three chaks one on plot no. 282 and 287 etc. the second on plot nos. 347 and 376 etc. and the third chak on plot no. 440/2 etc. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the third chak on plot no. 440. He filed objections under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. The objections were allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the petitioner's demand for allotment of a chak on plot no. 190 was accepted by the Consolidation officer. Ram Swaroop, respondent no.2 chak holder 379 preferred an appeal against the order, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The respondent no.2 preferred a revision, which was allowed by the Deputy Director Consolidation by order dated 15.2.2003. The petitioner challenged that order in writ petition no. 21990 of 2003. This court by its order dated 15.12.2003 allowed the petition on the ground that the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation did not contain reasons.

The Deputy Director Consolidation heard the matter afresh. The Deputy Director Consolidation has again allowed the revision of Ram Swaroop. The finding of the Deputy Director Consolidation is that plot no. 250 was the place where the respondent no. 2 had his largest holding and at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage he was rightly proposed an allotment at that place. The Consolidation Officer however allotted him a chak on plot nos. 452, 453, which were the original numbers of the petitioner. The Deputy Director Consolidation found that Ram Swaroop was allotted an uran chak at the stage of the consolidation officer. He has by the impugned order restored the position of the chaks at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage. Plot nos. 452, 453, which were the original numbers of the petitioner have been allotted in his third chak.

Sri Anant Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that plot no.190 was the largest number of the petitioner and he was entitled to allotment on that plot. In the counter affidavit it has been alleged that the largest number of the petitioner is not plot no.190 but plot no. 323. The copy of C.H. Form 23 has been annexed along with the counter affidavit, which indicates that plot no. 323, which was his largest number has been alloted to the petitioner. On the other hand the respondent no. 3 had his largest original holding on plot no. 250. The Deputy Director Consolidation has given good reason for restoring the chak at the Assistant Consolidation Officer stage. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.




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.