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


Sankata Prasad v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 7747 of 1996 [2005] RD-AH 6840 (2 December 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).


Hon. S. K. Singh, J.

By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been passed in the proceedings under Section 20 of the U. P.C. H. Act.

Proceedings are under Section 20 of the U.P.C.H. Act which relates to adjustment of chak between the parties. It is not to be emphasized that in these proceedings both parties can never be satisfied as it is not possible to accept the claim of both sides and, therefore, approach of this Court is to see whether there is any violation of under Section 19 of the U. P. C. H. Act or petitioner can be said to have suffered any prejudice. So far the case in hand is concerned there is no dispute about the fact that petitioners two chaks are on his own original plots and third chak  which was given to him on plot no. 61 has been disturbed and in lieu thereof he has been given chak over other plots. Admittedly plot no. 61 is the original holding of the contesting respondent which adjoins to the road and, therefore on  taking away of the plot no. 61 from the petitioner's chak, it cannot be said to that any mandate of Section 19 of the U. P. C. H. Act has been violated. Sole grievance of the petitioner as argued appears to be that his claim of compact/consolidated area has not been accepted, cannot be appreciated by this Court for the simple reason that this is factual aspect and if the Deputy Director of Consolidation on a consideration of the entire facts has adjusted the chak of the parties then by going on  the spot this Court cannot be make any changes.  As admittedly two chaks of the petitioner are on his original holding and that this Court is satisfied that by and large the adjustment made by the courts below are just and proper. On the facts this Court is not satisfied that the adjustment is in violation of Section 19 of the U. P. C. H. Act or petitioner has suffered any prejudice and, therefore, no interference is needed.

For the reasons given above this writ petition fails 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.