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


Gaon Sabha Keratu v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 28801 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 13850 (21 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).


Court No. 28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28801 of 2005

Gaon Sabha, Keratu vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surendra Nath Singh and Sri V.K.Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

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

Respondent nos. 3 & 4 filed two separate objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act') for mutation of their name over the land in dispute on the basis of an alleged patta said to have been executed on 30.7.1979 in their favour. The said two objections were registered as case nos. 2156 and 2157. The records of the aforesaid two objections were misplaced. The records were reconstructed and case no. 2156 was allotted new number 7522. Case no. 2157 was allotted number 7521. On the basis of oral evidence adduced, the Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 were allotted land in dispute on lease by the Gaon Sabha on 30.7.1979 and the same was accorded approval by the Pargana Adhikari on 2.10.1979. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the Consolidation Officer vide common order dated 15.6.1998 allowed the objection filed by respondent nos. 3 & 4 and directed their name to be recorded over the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the same order, Gaon Sabha filed two appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 5.11.2004. The appeals were allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation mainly on the ground that the original patta was not produced by respondent nos.3 & 4. The case set up by the respondents, that the original patta was filed in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and was there on the record which was misplaced, was not believed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which have been allowed vide common judgement dated 31.3.2005. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also recorded a finding that the land was allotted on the basis of the resolution dated 30.7.1979 passed by the Gaon Sabha and the same was duly approved by the Pargana Adhikari on 2.10.1979. Aggrieved by the said order, Gaon Sabha has come up before this court by filing the instant writ petition.

In order to resolve the controversy, this Court vide order dated 4.5.2006 directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the entire record. In compliance of the said order, record has been produced which has been perused by me. The original record contains the minutes of the meeting dated 30.7.1979 wherein a resolution was passed for making allotment of land in favour of respondent nos. 3 & 4. The approval accorded to the said resolution by the Pargana Adhikari dated 2.10.1979 is also on record.

From a perusal of the original record, it is clear that the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation are based on the record and they have rightly held that respondent nos. 3 & 4 were allotted land by the Gaon Sabha which was duly approved. The Settlement Officer Consolidation without considering the material on record had disallowed the claim of respondent nos. 3 & 4 only on the ground that original patta has not been produced without considering the fact that the same were filed by respondent nos. 3 & 4 before the Consolidaiton Officer but were misplaced along with records.

Since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly recorded the finding on the basis of the record that the Gaon Sabha has passed a resolution making allotment of land in favour of respondent nos. 3 & 4 and the same was duly approved, no interference is call for in the impugned order.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.




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.