High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Satyadeo Singh v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 67394 of 2005  RD-AH 4827 (25 October 2005)
W.P. No. 67394 of 2005
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the caveator.
By the impugned order, original plot no. 15 was assigned to Opp. party while petitioner's original plot no. 18 was subsumed in his chak. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that though petitioner has been assigned his original holding consisting in plot no. 18, the Opp. Party has been given land more than his share in plot no.15 by the impugned order passed by Deputy Director Consolidation which is his original holding situated on the main road.
From a perusal of record, it would transpire that petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved in so far as plot no.15 is concerned, which concededly is the original holding of Opp. party situated on the main road. It would further appear that the allotment has been made by the Deputy Director Consolidation strictly in accordance with the principles laid down under section 19 (1) of the U.P.C.H.Act. In my considered view, there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed in limine.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.