Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KHADERU versus THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GORAKHPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Khaderu v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 21825 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8547 (7 May 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.

    Application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioner claiming succession to the land in dispute  of which his father Balihari was the tenure holder. The application was allowed by an order dated 5.8.1991. An application for setting aside that order was filed  by the respondent Bechan on the ground that Bechan has purchased the property in 1986 and objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were pending in that matter and it was alleged that the ex parte order obtained by the petitioner affected the respondent Bechan. The Consolidation Officer allowed the application and restored the case to be decided on merits. Appeal allegiant the order was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the revision has also been dismissed. The petitioner will get opportunity of hearing on merits. The contention of the petitioner in para 10 of the writ petition is that the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Rustampur but was recalled by the Consolidation Officer, Goplapur, which it is stated could not be done unless the case had been transferred to him. No categorical averment that the case was not transferred has been made. Necessary facts and papers regarding jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer, Goplapur  to decide the matter are wanting. In any case the order of restoration is an eminently just order. No ground for interference in writ petition has been made out. Dismissed.

7.5.2007.

s.wp.21825/07.


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.