Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PREM KUMAR PANDEY & OTHERS versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prem Kumar Pandey & Others v. Principal Secretary (Revenue) & Others - WRIT - B No. 12078 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 14043 (22 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

Court no. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12078 of 2003

Prem Kumar Pandey.......................................................Petitioner

Versus

The Principal Secretary (Revenue) and others..........Respondents.

Hon. S.N.Srivastava, J.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of entire consolidation proceeding of village Katholi Pargana Kahiragarh Tappa Chaurasi Tahsil Meja District Allahabad attended with further prayed to direct the District Deputy Director Consolidation to conduct field to field Partal in respect of consolidation proceedings of the village as contemplated in section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act  and further according to the method contained in Paragraph 7 of Chapter I of the U.P. Land Revenue Manual. Besides the above, various other prayers have also been made including direction that Consolidation should be made with settlement map of 1282 fasli and with a map prepared according to field to field Partal comparing the same with the area of fields entered in Khatoni of Settlement 1282 Fasli.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that upon publication under section 4 of the Act, the Consolidation Authorities have begun measurements of the field without any settlement map or without reckoning into consideration the record of rights of settlement year 1282 fasli which is not permissible in law.

This Court by an order-dated 21.4.2006 had directed to produce the settlement map of the village concerned. Again direction was issued to produce map etc in compliance of the earlier order of the Court. Accordingly, learned Standing counsel produced the original map of Settlement year 1282 and also the settlement year Khatauni. Both the documents are too brittle to bear any touch and should be preserved appropriately.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Standing counsel.

The consolidation proceeding has commenced in village, upon notification under section 4. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding can be commenced only after plot to plot partal on the basis of settlement year map and Khatauni which has not been done so far. It is further urged that in case original papers are available, the field to field partal be undertaken de novo on the basis of settlement year records and the consolidation proceedings may proceed on the basis of the same. He also urged that consolidation proceedings are undertaken only to rectify the mistake and not to perpetuate the same. Per contra, learned Standing counsel submitted that the consolidation proceeding would be held according to the settlement year map.

In the above conspectus, it would be in the fitness of things if plot to plot survey is ordered to be made de novo on the basis of settlement year map and record of rights of 1282 fasli. It is ordered accordingly.

The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that the village had various ponds/tanks. In view of this fact it is directed that all such ponds/tanks shall be located on the basis of settlement year map and khasra and Khatauni and the same shall be pegged and bounded first with boundaries regard being had to settlement year map and only thereafter, other plots in the village may be measured for area and proceeding thereafter may go on. It is ordered accordingly.

The original record produced before the Court shall be returned and the same need not be presented before this Court unless directed otherwise.

List this matter on 25.9.2006 for further orders.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned Standing counsel for being communicated for compliance on payment of usual charges.

M.H.

22.8.2006


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.