Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PYARE LAL versus D.D.C. AND ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pyare Lal v. D.D.C. And Ors. - WRIT - B No. 9778 of 1983 [2007] RD-AH 5497 (28 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                       Court No.5.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9778 of 1983.

Pyare Lal.                                Vs.    Deputy Director of Consolidation,

                                                        Jhansi and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

                     This writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding. The petitioner's father Dasai was chak holder no. 115. It appears that the chak of several persons was affected by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 31.8.1982. Several revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation one of them being the revision of Ballu respondent no. 4. In that revision the father of the petitioner Dasai was impleaded as a respondent. The revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 24.12.1983. By that order the chak of the petitioner has been modified. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

                I have heard Sri N.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri V.S. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 7.

                It was submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is an ex parte one. Dasai who was the respondent in the revision had died during the pendency of the appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and his heirs were not represented.  Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition in which it is stated that Dasai died during the pendency of the appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the counter affidavit this averment has been denied and it has been stated that Dasai was alive till the filing of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The respondents contend that heirs of Dasai were heard and the order is not an ex parte one. Along with the second supplementary counter affidavit the respondent has filed a certified copy of the Vakalatnama showing that the petitioner Pyare Lal and his brother Kalika had engaged Sri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. In the rejoinder affidavit the averment has been denied. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, discloses that the affected parties have been heard. There is a clear recital in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the revisionist as well as the opposite parties were heard. The contention on behalf of the chak holder no.115, which is the chak of Dasai has also been noted in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. From these facts it appears that the petitioner was heard.

                I have heard Sri N.L. Pandey on merits of the matter also. He submits that the chak of the petitioner is a multi cornered one and secondly that the original allotment of the petitioner was near the canal and by the impugned order the petitioner's chak has been shifted away. The petitioner has not filed any map to prove that the chak of the petitioner is a multi cornered one so as to make cultivation difficult. He has also not filed any paper to indicate that the original holding of the petitioner was near the canal. The mere averment in the writ petition that the petitioner's chak has been shifted away from the canal is not sufficient. In the absence of material to indicate that the petitioner has suffered a loss in that his original holding was near the canal, which has now been disturbed it cannot be said that injustice has been done to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has also not filed papers to prove even the averments made by him. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order directed that area in the petitioner's chak on plot nos. 372 and 365 shall be reduced and the petitioner will be shifted to his original Nos. 365, 364/5 and 364/2 etc. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation giving the petitioner his original numbers thus appears to be just. No ground for interference has been made out. Dismissed.

28.3.2007.

s.


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.