Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RASHID & OTHERS versus THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MUZZAFFARNAGAR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rashid & Others v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Muzzaffarnagar & Others - WRIT - B No. 43925 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13674 (18 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. 43925 of 2006

Rashid and others

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard   learned counsel for the petitioners.

The brief facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under:

During consolidation proceedings, an objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the respondents claiming  their rights over the land in dispute on the ground that the  land belonging to them was sub-merged in river Yamuna and subsequently with change in course of the river the said land was recovered but was wrongly recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as Banzar and Naveen Parti. Consolidation Officer after considering the various objections filed in this regard allowed the same vide order dated 11.11.1993 and directed the land to be recorded in the name of contesting respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, Gaon Sabha filed an appeal, but the same was dismissed on 3.10.1997 as not pressed. Thereafter, an application was moved on behalf of Gaon Sabha to recall the said order which was allowed vide order dated 11.5.2000. Gaon Sabha again moved an application to dismiss the appeal as not pressed, which was allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 24.10.2005. Though Gaon Sabha got its appeal dismissed as not pressed yet it challenged the order by filing a revision. Revisional Court after considering the entire facts and circumstances dismissed the revision on merits. It has been held by the revisional court that the land in dispute originally belong to the respondents which was sub-merged in river Yamuna and after the same was recovered with change in the course of river, it has rightly been directed to be recorded in the name of  tenure holders. He has also held that the contradictory stands taken by Gaon Sabha throughout the proceedings is on account of partybandi and politics in the village. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision filed by Gaon Sabha, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing instant writ petition. They claim to be resident of the village and interested in subject mater in dispute.

The dispute is in between Gaon Sabha and the contesting respondents which has been finally adjudicated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merits. The petitioners were neither party nor have any interest in the land. The writ petition filed by the petitioners, who are totally stranger, challenging the order passed in a dispute between Gaon Sabha and the contesting respondents, is not at all maintainable.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

18.08.2006


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.