Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NARMADA PRASAD & OTHERS versus THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Narmada Prasad & Others v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Allahabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 19859 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7215 (19 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

It appears that the petitioners filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. During the pendency of the objections it  was alleged that a compromise has been entered into in which the parties have agreed to divide the land 'kurrawise'. The Consolidation Officer passed an order on the basis of the compromise but he found that kurra-wise batwara was erroneous and therefore rejected the kurrawise batwara and divided the land according to share. Appeal filed against the order by the respondents who challenged the compromise was dismissed.  Revision filed by respondents Anil Kumar and others was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The respondents  denied having entered into any compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and has directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits. The compromise could have been accepted as a whole or not at all. If the Consolidation Officer was rejecting the kurrrawise batwara provided in the compromise he ought to have directed the parties to lead evidence  and therefore the Deputy Director of Consolidation  rightly set aside the order of Consolidation Officer particularly when the revisionists were denying the compromise. The order for deciding the case on merit does not suffer from any error. Dismissed.

Dt. 19.4.2007

sn/wp-19859/07  


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.