Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MITHAI LAL MAURYA versus D.D.C. & ORS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mithai Lal Maurya v. D.D.C. & Ors - WRIT - B No. - 55392 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17607 (12 November 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. 05

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 55392 of 2007

Mithai Lal Maurya

versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur & Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Asray Yadav appearing for respondent no. 3.

This writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Against the proposed allotment, petitioner filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer which was rejected, against which petitioner went up in appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 28.5.2007 allowed the appeal and allotted Plot No. 132/4 in the chak of petitioner on the ground that it was adjacent to road side. Appellate order was challenged by contesting respondent by filing revision on the ground that small area of Plot no. 132 which though belonged to petitioner but was allotted in his chak in order to provide access to his Plot no. 134 from the link road since it was situate behind plot no. 132 and there was no other access. Deputy Director of Consolidation finding that plot no. 132 of the petitioner was situate in between link raod and Plot no. 134 of contesting respondent and unless some area of plot no. 132 was allotted in the chak of contesting respondent he would have no access to his chak, allowed the revision filed by contesting respondent.

The claim of petitioner is that since plot no. 132 was his original holding, the entire area of said plot should have been allotted in his chak. However, in view of fact situation that contesting respondent would have no access to his plot no. 134 unless some area of plot no. 132 is allotted in his chak since it is situate in between link road and plot no. 134 of contesting respondent, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision of contesting respondent. The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed in limine.

Dt.12.11.2007

KKS


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.