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


Ram Singhasan v. A.D.C. - WRIT - B No. 1356 of 1978 [2006] RD-AH 11201 (10 July 2006)


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).


(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1356 of 1978

Ram Sinhasan & Others vs.  Assistant Director of Consolidation and others


Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Petitioners filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of agricultural land comprised in two khatas 64 and 69.  In respect of Khata no.69 petitioners' objections were allowed.  However, in respect of khata no.64 petitioners' objections were dismissed by all the three courts i.e. Consolidation Officer (C.O.), Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C.) and Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.).  Before C.O., Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur the case was registered as case no.1436 and was dismissed in respect of khata no.64 through order dated 6.8.1973.  Appeal filed against the said order was registered as appeal no.485/478.  Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur dismissed the appeal on 15.1.1975.  Revision filed against the said judgment and orders being Revision no.1087/1829 was also dismissed by Assistant Director Consolidation, Gorakhpur (A.D.C.) on 3.11.1977 hence this writ petition.  All the three courts have held that for more than a century i.e. since 1860 A.D. names of petitioners' ancestors were not there in the revenue record and nature of land had changed hence it could not be said that petitioners had any right.

I do not find any error in the judgments of the three courts.  I have held in Jagdev and others Versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1332 of 1976 decided by me on 3.7.2006 that revenue entries standing since much before Zamindari Abolition can not be sought to be reversed in consolidation proceedings on the basis of alleged joint tenancy and the claim is barred on the principles of estoppel etc.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it 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.