Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. RAM RATI DEVI versus D.D.C. MIRZAPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Ram Rati Devi v. D.D.C. Mirzapur And Others - WRIT - B No. 42243 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 7434 (23 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

Court No.5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42243 of 2002

Smt.  Ram Rati Devi     ......... Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur and others .............. Respondents

---------

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

The petitioners filed objections under Section 9-B of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for fixing valuation of certain plots. The objections were belated and an application for condoning the delay was filed. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections on the ground of delay. In appeal the delay was condoned and the matter was examined by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on merits. It  is stated in the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that he made spot inspection of the plot. He found that although some crops were being cultivated the plots were affected  by a nala and the land was also uneven.  The Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the petitioner's appeal on merits.  The petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was submitted by the petitioner's counsel that no spot inspection was made and that the chakbandi karta has given a report that the land could be  included in consolidation operations as the land was of even level and crops were being grown. It was prayed that orders of all the consolidation authorities be set aside.  Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that contradictory finding has been recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in that while on one hand he says that plots are  affected by the nala on the other hand  he says that certain crops were growing upon it. In my opinion this contention has no merit. The mere fact that some crops were grown upon the disputed land does not mean that it is not affected by the nala. It is well known that during rainy season a nala may over flow and affect the adjoining plots even though some cultivation may be carried on the affected plot.  The Settlement Officer had made a spot inspection as stated in his order itself. In view of the spot inspection made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the findings recorded by him which have been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  which are findings of fact I do not rely upon the report of the Chakbandi Karta. Moreover the plots are the original number of the petitioners  and they will continue to remain with her being chak out. No ground for interference has been made out. Dismissed.

Dt. 23.4.2007

sn


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.