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


Rukmesh v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Bijnor & Another - WRIT - B No. 22370 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 9262 (15 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).


Court No. 4

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 27986 of 2007


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22370 of 2006

Rukmesh Devi


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

This is an application filed by applicant-petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 13.11.2006 dismissing the writ petition.

Heard Sri H. N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Review is being sought on the ground that this Court has failed to consider that  the amendment schedule prepared by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  is against the findings recorded in the judgment.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner that the amendment chart prepared by the Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that revisionist-petitioner has not been allotted plot no. 3/1. It has further been urged that by the allotment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioner has been given land which is not fit for cultivation.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and perused the record.

Writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation mainly on the ground that plot no. 11/2 allotted in the chak of the petitioner was not his original holding and was full of pits and was not cultivable. Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision on the finding that by the proposed adjustment petitioner also gets original holding consisting of plot no. 3/1 and 3/2 and her chak also goes adjacent to chak of her husband.

A perusal of the amendment chart goes to show that some area of plot no. 11/2 has been allotted in the chak of petitioner as well as in the chak of contesting respondent no. 2 along with some other tenure holders. During consolidation proceedings, it is not possible to allot original holding of every tenure holders in his chak and if it is done so  it  would frustrate the purpose of consolidation itself.

A perusal of the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation clearly goes to show that while making adjustment, the petitioner has been allotted major portion of chak on his original holding.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the said order was rightly dismissed and no good ground for review of the same has been made out.

Review petition lacks merits and accordingly stands dismissed.

Date : May 15, 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.