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


Mata Prasad & Others v. D.M./District Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Basti & Others - WRIT - B No. 7700 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2455 (14 February 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.   7700  of  2007

Mata Prasad & others ........................................................................    Petitioner


District Magistrate/

District Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Basti & others  ........................................................................          Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Pathak appearing for the respondents.

By this writ petition  the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the District Magistrate/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti.  Petitioner earlier has filed writ petition  No. 52376 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court on 22.9.2006 directing the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti to consider and take decision on the representation of the petitioner  dated 22.3.2006.  In pursuance of the said order the impugned order has been passed.  The village in question was under consolidation.  Notification Under Section   52 was published on 3.8.1985 and the records were sent  to Tahsil.  The respondents earlier filed writ petition  No. 2144 of 1988  restraining the consolidation authorities  from making any correction in the records.  The said writ petition  was decided by this Court  on 3.3.1989.  This Court passed an order prohibiting  the consolidation authorities from adjudicating  upon any case  or title about any plot or chak or to make any correction in the consolidation records under Section  42-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.  After the said order again a writ petition  was filed by the petitioner  being writ petition  No. 53936 of 2005 stating that the reference  proceedings have not been decided and the records have been directed to have been sent  to Tahsil. This Court vide its judgement dated  5.8.2005 observed :-

" However, the grievance  of the petitioner if any has already been protected  for being entertained by the  observation as has been made by this court in the judgement


dated 3.3.1989 in writ petition  No. 2144 of 1988  and therefore, it is for the aggrieved person against the error if any in the record to move to the competent  revenue court in terms of the observation of this court  as made in the judgement referred above.  As about 19-20 years has already  passed after de-notification of the village now  it is for the consolidation authorities to move very fast  to get order of the Collector, impugned before this Court implemented."

After the said order  of this Court the petitioner filed again another writ petition  No. 52376 of 2006  which was disposed of  on 22.9.2006.  As noticed above  the District Deputy Director of Consolidation  in the impugned order  has taken the view  that the records have been forwarded to the Tahsil  and it will be open  for the applicant to move an application for correction of the record Under Sections 33/39 and 28 of the Land Revenue Act.  It was further observed that  right can also be claimed Under Section   229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.  The application for correction of record was earlier  filed and  the District Deputy Director of Consolidation had rejected application after hearing the parties.  The same view was taken in the earlier writ petition being writ petition  No. 2144 of 1988. The de-notification having been  issued on 3.8.1985 and the records having been forwarded to the Tahsil,  no error has been committed in taking the view  that the correction can be made under Land Revenue Act.   At this stage as observed by the Collector  it is always open  for the applicants to seek correction Under Sections 33/39 and Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.  I do not find any error in the order  of the Collector  warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.  As observed above, the liberty has been reserved to the applications to seek correction.  

Subject to above observation, the writ petition  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.