Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEO NARAIN versus THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GORAKHPUR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Deo Narain v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 40150 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12626 (1 August 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

Civil Misc. Writ No. 40150 of 2006

Deo Narain.....Petitioner

Versus

The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur

& others...Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This writ  petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. According to the pleadings as set out in the writ petition Plots no. 342, 343 and 402/2 are the original holdings of the petitioner and pro forma respondents. The share of the petitioner in the said plots is 381 aire. The proposed chak of the petitioner at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer did not include his original holding. However, on an objection filed by the petitioner Plots no. 342 and 343 area 382 aire was given in his chak. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 17.8.2002 allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.2 without disturbing the original holding allotted to the petitioner at the Consolidation officer Stage. Still being not satisfied by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, respondent no. 2 went up in revision. The Deputy Direction of Consolidation vide order dated 27.5.2006 partly allowed the revision.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally dislodged the petitioner from the area of plot no. 342 and 343 and has allotted the said area in chak of respondent no.2.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that total area of Plot no. 402/2 is 182 aire out of which the share of respondent no. 2 is 1/7. He has also recorded a finding that one Ashok  respondent in connected revision no. 448 is also original tenure holder of the said plot and as such the area of 46 aire of plot no. 402/2 allotted in chak of Netram/ respondent no. 2 was adjusted in chak of Ashok who was also an original tenure holder of the said plot and  respondent no. 2 was allotted 92 aire out of his original plot no. 342 and area  of plot no. 402 was taken out from the chak of the petitioner and allotted in chak of respondent no. 2. The petitioner was adjusted on his plot no. 941 on the ground that he was the biggest co-sharer of the said plot but it was not allotted in his chak and accordingly an area of 271 aire of the said plot was allotted in his chak. By the adjustment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation all the parties have been allotted chaks on their original holdings.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been deprived of his original plot no. 342 and 343. A perusal of the chart of the Deputy Director of Consolidation goes to show that an area of 56 aire from Plot no. 342 and an area of 34 aire from plot no. 343 has only been taken out from the chak of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his total share in the said plots was 381 air, which was allotted to him by the Consolidation Officer out of which only an  area of 90 aire of the said plots has been taken out from the chak of the petitioner.

Certain adjustments are required to be made during the chak allotment proceedings in order to adjust equity between all the parties. The claim of any party for allotting entire original holding in his chak cannot be allowed for that may frustrate the very purpose of the consolidation operation.

From the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation as stated above it becomes clear that by adjustment made by him all the parties have been allotted major part of original holding in their chaks and thereby  the equity stands adjusted in between them.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order dated 27.5.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Dt.1.8.2006


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.