Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TEJ PAL versus DDC

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tej Pal v. Ddc - WRIT - B No. 7622 of 1980 [2006] RD-AH 121 (2 January 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 28

Civil Misc. Writ petition no7622 of 1980

Tej Pal

Vs.

Deputy Director of Consolidation & ors.      

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings.

Against the proposed allotment  the petitioner filed an  objection under Section 20 of the  U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ( for short the Act ) on the ground that he  was being deprived of his original holdings. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29.12.1979 dismissed the objection. Feeling aggrieved  he filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated  25.3.1980 allowed the same. The petitioner not satisfied with the alteration made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation  in his chak filed a revision. The respondent no. 4 and 6 also went up in revision against the said order. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10.6.1980 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. However, by  order of the same date he allowed the revision filed by respondent no. 4 and 6. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed present writ petition challenging the order passed by Deputy Director  of Consolidation dismissing his revision and allowing the revision of respondent no. 4 and 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Settlement Officer Consolidation after making spot inspection and perusal of record found that the petitioner was deprived of his original holdings and accordingly made adjustment to include the original holdings in his chak. He   has also recorded a finding that by proposed adjustment  the chak of the petitioner as well as that of respondent no. 4 and 6 could be irrigated by the canal.

The revision filed by the petitioner seeking further improvements in his  chak and to make it rectangular  was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, while considering the revision filed  by the respondent no. 4 and 6 Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the  order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation only on the ground that since all the three affected persons had filed revisions which shows that they are not satisfied with the appellate order and since only one appeal was filed against the  order  of Consolidation Officer as such the chak allotted at the stage of Consolidation Officer was more appropriate and satisfactory. Apart from above no other reason has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for setting aside the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

The  Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to consider the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation nor has set aside the same. He has failed to consider that appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation mainly on the ground that he was deprived of his original holdings. The Deputy Director of consolidation has also not considered that by relegating the parties  to the chak allotted at the stage of  Consolidation Officer the petitioner would be deprived of his original holdings which is against the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. A perusal of the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation goes to show that by the adjustment proposed by him the equities stands adjusted between the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the said judgment on totally irrelevant consideration.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition stands partly allowed. The impugned judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.6.1980 passed in revision No. 255 and 266 is hereby quashed and that of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.3.1980 is hereby affirmed.

No order as to costs.

2.1.2006.

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.