Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KISHUN versus D.D.C. AND OTEHRS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kishun v. D.D.C. And Otehrs - WRIT - B No. 75107 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 12682 (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 Petition No. 36138 of 2006

Ram Kishun    vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation  & others

Connected with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75107 of 2005

Ram Kishun    vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation  & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The dispute relates to khata nos. 6 & 26, which were recorded in the name of opposite party -IInd Set and petitioner respectively in the basic year. An objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by opposite party - IInd Set for being recorded as co-tenant along with petitioner in khata no. 26 on the ground that it was ancestral property. The petitioner also filed objection for being recorded as co-tenant along opposite party - IInd Set in khata no. 6. The dispute traveled up to Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. During pendency of the revision, the petitioner moved an amendment application dated 30.4.2005 seeking amendment in the pedigree submitted by him before the court below to the effect that name of Sheo be read as Sheo @ Madho. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10.10.2005 dismissed the amendment application on the ground that by the proposed amendment the complexion of the entire case would change. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing writ petition no. 75107 of 2005. The said petition remained pending and even notices were not issued. In the meantime, the revisional court vide order dated 23.6.2006 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the appellate court.

It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision has wrongly been dismissed solely on the ground that amendment application has already been dismissed without considering that writ petition filed challenging the said order is still pending. It has further been urged that revision ought to have been decided on merits after considering the evidence filed by the petitioner that Sheo be read as Sheo @ Madho and both are the same person.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

While dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that the petitioner never pleaded either before the Assistant Consolidation Officer or before the Consolidation Officer that Sheo and Madho are one and same person and for the first time, this fact was sought to be brought on record by filing amendment application which was rejected. It has further been held that petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the property was ancestral or was purchased from joint nucleus. In the absence of any evidence to the effect, the claim of joint tenancy by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by all the three courts below.

In so far as writ petition no. 75107 of 2005 is concerned, wherein challenge has been made to the order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the amendment application, there was no order passed by this court staying the proceedings. As such, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed no illegality in continuing with the proceedings which has ultimately culminated into final order dismissing the revision. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition before this court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have proceeded with the hearing and disposal of the revision is without any substance. Even otherwise, the writ petition has no force on merits. The amendment sought by the petitioner for the first time in revision was rightly rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as it would have changed the entire complexion of the dispute.

As a result of the aforesaid discussions, both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly, stand 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.