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


Mohan & Others v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Ghazipur & Others - WRIT - B No. 35128 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12049 (24 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35128 of 2006

Mohan & Others.............Petitioners


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur

& Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri A.N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.L. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents no. 3 to 9.

The dispute relates to Khata No. 101, Situate in village and post Mahmoodpur  District Ghazipur which was recorded in the name of Smt. Nagesari widow of Garib in the basic year Khatauni. An objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by the contesting respondents claiming rights over khata in dispute on the basis of alleged sale deed said to have been executed by Smt. Nagesari in their favour. The said objection was numbered as 1151 of 1991. The petitioners also filed an objection with regard to khata in dispute for recording their names on the basis of alleged will deed said to have been executed by Garib, husband of Smt. Nagesari, the recorded tenure holder. In the objection filed by contesting respondents, the petitioners moved an application for being substituted in place of Smt. Nagesari. The said application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that since Smt. Nagesari had died prior to the initiation of proceedings as such no substitution was maintainable. Revision filed by the petitioner challenging the said order also dismissed.  The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the said two orders claiming they are entitled to be substituted in place of deceased Nagesari.

The petitioners are claiming rights on the basis of a will deed whereas the contesting respondents are claiming rights on the basis of an alleged sale deed. Since both the parties are claiming rights over the khata in dispute on the basis of two different documents, it would be in the interest of justice that both the objections may be consolidated and decided together by the Consolidation Officer.

In view of above, it is hereby directed that objections filed by contesting respondents as well as petitioners shall be consolidated and disposed of together by the Consolidation Officer in accordance with law. Since the matter has been pending since 1991, it is expected that the Consolidation Officer shall dispose of the objections as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.



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.