Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHRI CHUNNI LAL versus MAHESH PRASAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shri Chunni Lal v. Mahesh Prasad & Others - WRIT - B No. 14134 of 1983 [2005] RD-AH 6515 (28 November 2005)

 

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. 28

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.  14134 OF 1983

CHUNNI LA L  VS.  MEHESH PRASAD & ORS.

HON'BLE KRISHNA  MURARI, J.

Heard Sri  A.N.  Bhargawa learned counsel for petitioner and Sri  R.K. Pandey appearing for the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3.

This petition arises out of  chak allotment proceedings.  The petitioner filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer against proposed allotment which was dismissed vide order dated 15.7.1982. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal . The Settlement Officer consolidation vide order dated 7.12.1982 allowed the same. However, the petitioner was not satisfied with the valuation of the land allotted in his chak by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as such he went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 also filed a revision against the said order.  The revision filed by the petitioner was numbered as 2054 whereas the revision filed by the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 was numbered as 2255. The Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated both the revisions and vide order dated 7.5.1983 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner whereas the revision of respondent no.1, 2 and 3 was allowed. Thereafter petitioner moved an application for recalling the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the revision of respondent no. 1  to  3 on the ground that  he was not served  with  any  notice and had no knowledge  about the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.8.1983 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

While dismissing the restoration application filled by the petitioner, a clear finding of fact has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the order sheet dated 3.5.1983 of revision no. 2255 filed by respondents bears the signature of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further found that order dated 7.5.1983 alleged to be  the ex parte by the petitioner, was passed after hearing  both the parties. A perusal of the order dated 7.5.1983 itself goes to show that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same has been passed after making spot inspection on 6.5.1983. Thus it cannot be said that the order-dated 7.5.1983 was passed without hearing  the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly dismissed the restoration application filed by the petitioner after recording a categorical finding that he has signed the ordersheet dated 3.5.1983 of revision no. 2255 filed by respondent no. 1,2 and 3. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the said finding of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation is either against the evidence on record or vitiated for any other reasons. There is no scope for interference in the order-dated 17.8.1983 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner.

The petitioner has also challenged the appellate as well as revisional order on merits.   A perusal of the appellate order goes to show that appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and he was allotted third chak in Sector -34 on his original plots.  The Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 7.5.1983 has also  recorded a finding that the petitioner has been allotted  chaks on his original holdings.

In view of the foresaid finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation there is no scope left for this court to interfere in the impugned orders even on merits.

In view of the aforesaid discussions this writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

28.11.2005.

g.


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.