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


Chini Prasad v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Basti & Others - WRIT - B No. 47516 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14937 (31 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. 47516 of 2006

Chini Prasad ...........Petitioner


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti

and Others..........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri P. N. Tripathi , learned counsel for the petitioner.

The facts are that on an objection filed by the father of the contesting respondents no. 4 and 5, the land in dispute was allotted in his chak by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.1.1973. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal in the year 1999. The  cause of action shown for delay in filing the appeal was that an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer behind his back and he had no notice or knowledge. It was also pleaded that when the contesting respondents started cutting trees standing over the land in dispute then made enquiries and came to know about the order. The Settlement Officer Consolidation disbelieving the explanation submitted by the petitioner, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also confirmed the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and dismissed the revision.

Admittedly, the appeal was filed by the petitioner after a lapse of about 27 years and that too after 20 years of publication of notification under Section 52 as observed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his judgment.  It cannot be believed that for such a long period the petitioner could not have come to know that certain changes had been made in his chak as long back as 1973. The explanation submitted by the petitioner for delay in filing the appeal was totally vague and had rightly been disbelieved by the Consolidation Authorities. There appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders.

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.