Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JEET SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jeet Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 74504 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 8146 (28 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

Heard Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1.

The petitioners, 140 in numbers, have challenged the notification under Section 4(1)(a) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act mainly on the ground that holdings of the village are already consolidated and the tenure-holders are generally satisfied with the present position and the village map is so torn that consolidation proceedings in the village will be very difficult.

It has been stated that the village in question has about 200 khatas and there are about 300 khatedars out of which 114 have approached this court for cancellation of the notification.

Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 provides that the notification made under Section 4 of the Act, may among other reasons, be cancelled in respect of the whole or any part of the area on one or more on the following grounds namely, the area is under a development scheme of such a nature that after completion it would render the consolidation operation inequitable, the holding of the village are already consolidated and the tenure-holders are generally satisfied with the present position, the village map is so torn up by party factions as to render proper consolidation proceedings very difficult, a cooperative society has been formed for carrying out cultivation in the area.

It has also been stated that the petitioners have approached respondent no.1 for redressal of their grievances by filing a representation which has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition.

The dispute in the writ petition is factual in nature as it relates to the satisfaction of the general tenure-holders with the present position and the village map being torn up so as to render the consolidation proceedings very difficult and cannot be effectively adjudicated by this court in writ jurisdiction.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct respondent no.1, who has already been approached by the petitioners, by means of the representation to dispose of the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

With the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.


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.