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


Rama Kant v. Jt.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 17271 of 1989 [2007] RD-AH 6256 (5 April 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).



                                                                                                         Court No.5.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17271 of 1989.

Rama Kant.                        Vs.             Joint Director of Consolidation

                                                            Etawah and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

       In the basic year plot no.36/1 was recorded in the name of the petitioner Rama Kant. Objections under Section 20 of the  U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the Gaon Sabha. The Consolidation Officer allotted plot no.36/1 of the petitioner to the Gaon Sabha and instead the petitioner was allotted two chaks one on plot nos. 290, 291 and 292 etc. and the second chak on plot no. 133. The Gaon Sabha never appealed against the order. The respondent no.2 Subey Lal filed an appeal against the order before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In his counter affidavit filed in this petition Subey Lal has alleged that he has filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is claiming title of plot no.36/1 and that these objections are still pending. He claims to be in possession of plot no. 36/1 but his claim is disputed by the petitioner. Subey Lal's appeal against the Consolidation Officer order was dismissed. Subey Lal filed a revision. The revision has been allowed and the chak of the petitioner has been modified in that plot no. 36/1 has been allotted back to the petitioner and his chak on plot no. 290 etc. and second chak on plot no. 133 has been abolished and has been given as bachat land to the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation has filed the present writ petition.

            I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar holding brief of Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

                The petitioner's counsel has challenged the right of Subey Lal to file the appeal or revision as Subey Lal is not the tenure holder of any of the plots in dispute.

               Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted  that the application for allotment of plot no.36/1 as bachat land was moved by the brother of the petitioner who was the Pradhan and therefore the proceedings were collusive. It does not lie in the mouth of Subey Lal to say so. The respondent no.2 had filed the appeal and revision in his own rights and was not pursuing the cause of the Gaon Sabha. The respondent no. 2  claims title over plot no.36/1 and he is not litigating in the interest of the Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha was given time to file a counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed till date and it has not come forward to contest the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the basic  year entry of plot no. 36/1 is in favour of the petitioner. Subey Lal's objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are said to be  pending. Subey Lal, therefore, cannot be regarded as tenure holder of plot no.36/1 until his objection is allowed. He is not claiming allotment of plot no.36/1 to himself. What is being submitted on his behalf is that plot no.36/1 be allotted to the petitioner and the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation be maintained. The appeal filed by the respondent no. 2 against the order of the Consolidation Officer, therefore, was not maintainable. The revision filed against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation by respondent no. 2 Subey Lal was also not maintainable for the same reason. If the Gaon Sabha were aggrieved it was open to it to have challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer or of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Gaon Sabha did not choose to file any appeal or revision.

             For this reason the Joint Director of Consolidation erred in interfering in the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. It appears that several revisions were filed before the Joint Director of Consolidation. The order of the Joint Director of Consolidation dated 13.9.1989 is quashed only in respect of the petitioner.




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.