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


Ram Chandra & Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Ghazipur & Others - WRIT - B No. 45812 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14324 (24 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45812 of 2006

Ram Chandra and another


Deputy Director of Consolidation/Addl. Collector (LR), Ghazipur & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard   Sri S. N. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The facts are that the objection filed by certain Chak holders, including the petitioners, were decided by the Consolidation Officer by a common order dated 2.7.1990. Thereafter, the village was de-notified on 27.7.1996. The respondents no. 2 and 3 filed highly belated application under Section 42 A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act seeking correction in the final record and map. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 2.8.2004 allowed the same and modified the earlier order dated 2.7.1990. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur. Vide order dated 16.12.2004, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. He further remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer to submit a report with regard to the correction of final record and map and to forward the report to the Collector where proceedings can be undertaken under Sections 33/39 read with Section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. He further directed the parties to appear before the Court of Collector on 27.12.2004. The Consolidation Officer in compliance of the order dated 16.12.2004 submitted a report dated 13.7.2005. However, instead of forwarding the said report to the Collector, it was sent to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. On 1.4.2006, the respondents no. 2 and 3 moved an application for recalling the order dated 16.12.2004 which was dismissed on 31.3.2006. The respondents no. 2 and 3 again moved an application to recall the order dated 1.4.2006. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 21.4.2006, which has been impugned in the writ petition, forwarded the report submitted by the Consolidation Officer to the court of Collector to be considered in the proceedings registered before him under Sections 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the parties that the order dated 21.4.2006 amounts to review of the order dated 31.3.2006 for which there was no jurisdiction.

There is no manner of doubt that the consolidation authorities are not vested with any power of review. Thus, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not review any order passed by him. However, the impugned order dated 21.4.2006, as a matter of fact, does not amount to review of earlier order. By the order dated 16.12.2004, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who is also the Collector, had directed that the Consolidation Officer may submit a report and thereafter proceedings would be undertaken under Sections 33/39 and section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. The application filed by the respondents to recall the said order was dismissed. The respondents again filed an application on which order dated 21.4.2006 has been passed. This order only reaffirms the earlier order dated 16.12.2004. Thus, it cannot be termed as review. For correction of map and record, if any required, can be undertaken under Sections 33/39 read with Section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and the same has been directed by the order dated 16.12.2004 as well as 21.4.2006. Thus, the order dated 21.4.2006 cannot be termed as an order by which any earlier order has been reviewed rather the direction contained in the earlier order dated 16.12.2006 has been affirmed. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order on the ground that the same amounts to review of earlier order.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby 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.