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


Ram Bilash And Another v. D.D.C.Gorakhpur And Others - WRIT - B No. 27494 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 7815 (26 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. 27494 of 1999.

Ram Bilash and another.      Vs.   Deputy Director Consolidation and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

This writ petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. The respondent no. 2 Smt. Parwati Devi was aggrieved by the proposed allotment of the chak and she had filed objections but the Consolidation Officer rejected her objections. Against that order she preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 28.11.1998. Respondent no.2 Smt. Parwati Devi preferred a revision, which was allowed by the Deputy Director Consolidation by order dated 26.6.1999. The grievance of the respondent no.2 was that she had been alloted two chaks, one on plot no.128 etc. of valuation of 69.59 and a second chak on plot no. 104/1 of valuation  45.28. Her grievance was that her chak on plot no.104/1 was multi cornered and altogether inconvenient for cultivation. The  Deputy Director Consolidation made a spot inspection. He found the grievance of respondent no. 2 justified and he also found justified the claim of the respondent no. 2 for allotment of the boring in the south-western corner to her. It was also found by the  Deputy Director Consolidation that the chak alloted to the petitioners was an 'udan' chak. He therefore modified the chaks. The reason given by the Deputy Director Consolidation are sound. He had also made a spot inspection. No ground for interference has been made out.

The order of the Deputy Director Consolidation indicates that by the modifications made by him the chaks no. 182, 427 and 316 were affected. The chak no. 427 is the petitioners' chak. Chak No.182 is the chak of Parvati respondent no. 2 whereas another chak, which was affected, namely, chak no.316 was the chak of Ram Niwas. It is not disputed by the counsel for the parties that plot no.102 has been taken out from Ram Niwas and has been alloted to the petitioners. Ram Niwas was, therefore, a necessary party in the writ petition but he has not been impleaded. The order of the  Deputy Director Consolidation does not suffer from any perversity. Moreover, the petitioners have also not impleaded a necessary party. For all reasons the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.




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.