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


Nathi v. D.D.C. Saharanpur And Others - WRIT - B No. 74177 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7004 (6 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).


Heard Sri S.K.Tyagi, leanred counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner claims to be an allottee of an area of 1 bigha 2 biswa of plot no. 945 which was declared surplus in ceiling proceedings. He was allotted the said land on 6.4.1978 and claims to be in possession since then. After consolidation proceeding was over and the village was  denotified under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, an objection was filed by the respondents to expunge the name of the petitioner and to record their names. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30.7.2003 allowed the same. Against which the petitioner filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 22.10.2005 allowed the appeal of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision wherein an interim order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation staying the operation of the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 7.11.2005. The revision is yet to be decided on merit.

It has been alleged that taking advantage of the said order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner on the basis of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.

The petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is inter-locutory in nature against which a writ petition is not maintainable.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was allotted land declared surplus in ceiling proceedings in 1978 and since then his name has been recorded in the revenue record and also the fact that the respondents filed objection after denotification, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision on merits within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

For a period of three months or till disposal of the revision whichever is earlier, the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute shall remain stayed.

Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.


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.