High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Nath v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. - 17018 of 1985  RD-AH 16249 (3 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17018 of 1985
Ram Nath .......... Petitioners.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others..... Respondents.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Against the proposed allotment, an objection was filed on behalf of the contesting respondent which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.3.1984, against which he went up in appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 24.1.1985 dismissed the same. Contesting respondent went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 25.10.1985 allowed the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court.
The dispute between the parties is with respect to allotment of plot no. 47 in their respective chak. Admittedly, the said plot was the original holding of the contesting respondent, he being one of the seven co-sharer of the said plot. The grievance of the petitioner before the consolidation authorities was that he is one of the co-sharers of plot no. 47 and appropriately his chak should be carved out on the western side of the said plot. Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed his appeal only on the ground that both the chak alloted to him are on his original holding. Revisional court finding that the land of plot no. 47 falling on the western side was valued at 40 paise whereas the rest of the area was valued at 50 paise and 60 paise and on account of allotment of the western part of the said plot in the chak of the petitioner the area of his chak has increased to 3-1-1 as against the area of his original holding 2-8-15 whereas that of the contesting respondent has been reduced to 3-11-0 from 4-0-16 and the petitioner has been allotted completely 'uran' chak on this plot and directed exchange of area of plot no. 47 allotted in the chak of the petitioner and respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 being the original tenure-holder of plot no. 47 has definitely a better claim than the petitioner who has been allotted completely 'uran' chak on the said plot and in this view of the matter, I find no illegality in the adjustment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by directing exchange of the area of plot no. 47 allotted in the chak of petitioner and respondent no.5.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.