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


Hari Singh v. D.D.C. & Another - WRIT - B No. 4250 of 1997 [2007] RD-AH 6612 (11 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. 4250 of 1997

Hari Singh    ......   Vs.  ........ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad  

  and another  


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

Heard Sri Vijai Prakash counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Sirohi counsel for respondent no.2

It appears that plot no. 499 is recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner claims possession over the said plot. The area of the plot no.499 was entered as 0-3-0 but his by order dated 25.4.1988 the Consolidation Officer directed that the area of the plot be entered as 0-8-0. A report was submitted by the Consolidation Officer on 8.5.1993 on the basis of which a reference was drawn that on the spot the area of the plot was 0-3-0. The reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 28.6.1993. Against this order the petitioner filed a restoration application which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 20.1.1997. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the order dated 28.6.1993 was passed after hearing the parties. It has also been found that the order was passed on 28.6.1993 whereas the restoration application was filed after three years without proper explanation for the delay.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity before the reference was accepted. Neither the Gaon Sabha nor the State has been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the plot no. 499 is a Gaon Sabha plot.   The petitioner is not the tenure holder of plot no. 499 and merely claims to be in possession. As the petitioner is not the tenure holder it was not necessary to issue notice to him in the reference. The Gaon Sabha in whose name the plot is entered has not raised any objection. The order has been passed on the report of the Consolidation Officer that the area of the plot is 0-3-0. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is based upon material. Necessary parties have not been impleaded in the  petition. The impugned order in reference proceedings does not suffer from any illegality. Dismissed.

Dt. 11.4.2007



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.