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


Jagmohan v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Fatehpur & Others - WRIT - B No. - 49274 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17113 (30 October 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49274 of 2007

Jag Mohan


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri R. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. K. Maurya appearing for contesting respondents no. 4 to 6.

This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Petitioner and respondent no. 4 being real brothers are co-sharers both having 1/2 share each. Against the proposed allotment, petitioner filed two objections claiming allotment of plot no. 1272 in his chak. Consolidation Officer consolidated both the objections and vide order dated 24.4.2003 dismissed the same on the ground that entire area of plot no. 1272 was 9360 Sq. meter out of which area 8106 Sq. meter has been allotted in his chak. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 6.4.2004 on the same finding.

In the meantime, petitioner filed another appeal against the order dated 11.6.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidationj of Holdings Act for partition of his 1/2 share. The said appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 29.5.2006 and the khata was partitioned. Thereafter, petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 both filed revisions challenging the appellate order dated 6.4.2004 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation with regard to chak allotment. Grievance of the petitioner was that valuation of plot no. 78, 896 and 267 may be given on his original plot no. 1272 on which his boring exists and his other original plot may be allotted in his chak and URAN plot no. 998, 1115 and 1016 may be taken out from his chak and valuation of the same may be given on plot no. 1272. The grievance of respondent no. 4 was that after partition of the khata, the land may be allotted in such a manner that both the parties may have advantage of the adjoining road and his chak may be carved out on the western side where his tube-well and boring exists. Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated both the revisions and vide order dated 20.9.2007 allowed the same and partitioned the chak of the parties in a manner that both have been allotted chak adjacent to the road side.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision but his grievance is still not satisfied. During consolidation operation, it is not possible to satisfy the total demand made by all tenure holders. By the impugned order, Deputy Director of Consolidation has partitioned the chaks of the parties in accordance with their shares in a manner that both of them have been given benefit of having chak on the road side.

In view of the aforesaid, there appears to be no scope for interference in the impugned order. Writ petition accordingly fails 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.