Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAGHAVA PRASAD MAURYA versus D.D.C.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raghava Prasad Maurya v. D.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 3569 of 1983 [2005] RD-AH 8102 (23 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 28.

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 3569 OF 1983

Raghav Prasad Maurya & anr.

Vs

The Deputy Director of Consolidation and others.

HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Heard Sri B.   Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Mohan for the contesting respondents.

The facts are that  in a title dispute between the petitioners' father and the  contesting respondents  it was held that the petitioners' father  was entitled to half share in plot no. 366. On account of the decision in title dispute the petitioners were entitled to get an equal valuation of land allotted in their chak. Accordingly a reference was prepared and  vide order dated 26.12.1978, the Consolidation Officer allotted  127 Karis from the plot no. 123 falling in the chak of the contesting respondents in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved  the contesting respondents filed a revision mainly on the ground that plot  no. 123 from which the valuation is being taken out and allotted to the petitioners lies near their abadi in front of their house  as such adjustment may be made from some other plots of his chak. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10.3.1983 allowed the revision and adjusted the valuation from   the other plots allotted in the chak of answering respondents.

The order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged mainly on the ground that the order dated 26.12.1978 passed by Consolidation Officer was on the basis of consent and was not open to challenge. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly allowed the same.  It has been urged that the finding recorded by the respondent  no. 1 that  petitioners have a chak worth 96 Annas near abadi is factual incorrect.

In reply it has been submitted that the order passed by Consolidation Officer  was not on the basis of consent as no notice was issued or served on respondent no.2, Mohan. Even the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that no notice was issued by the Consolidation Officer to respondent no.2, Mohan before passing the order dated 26.12.1978.  It has further been contended that after considering the entire facts the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the order and the same is not open to interference.

From the order of Consolidation Officer filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition, it  becomes clear that respondent no.2 was not present before Consolidation Officer. Since one of the parties was not present  before Consolidation Officer, it cannot be said that order was passed on the basis of consent of the parties.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a clear finding that the petitioner never raised any claim for plot no. 123 in chak allotment proceedings, and the  allotment  of the said plot in  the chak of contesting respondent was confirmed up to the stage of Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has further recorded a finding that the plot no. 60, 61, 62 and 64 from which the valuation is proposed to be adjusted in the chak of the petitioners are situate near abadi where the petitioners have another chak of 96 Annas adjacent to the abadi. Though this  finding has been challenged  by the petitioners  as wrong and incorrect but nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the  said finding is incorrect.

The finding recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation are findings of fact not open for interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further it appears that by the order impugned in the writ petition equity  stands adjusted between the parties and thus also it does not call for any interference from this court.

The writ petition  accordingly fails and is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

23.12.2005

3569/83/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.