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


Bhrigu Nath Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary (Revenue) U.P. Lucknow & Ors. - WRIT - B No. 48187 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15225 (4 September 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. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48187 of 2006

Bhrigu Nath Singh vs. State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 7.

The facts are that an objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act')was dismissed as barred by limitation on the ground that it was filed after seven year of publication under Section 9 and the explanation submitted for delay was not reasonable. The grievance of the petitioner in the objection was that an area of 153 air of plot no. 33 belonging to the petitioner and the respondents has been recorded as road and the entire area has been taken out from his share whereas it should have been equally distributed in between the petitioner and the respondents. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed vide order 31.7.2006, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

A finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  that during ''partal' the said area was found to be road and accordingly, recorded in CH Form-2Ka. A further finding was recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  that the land has been inherited by the petitioner after death of the recorded tenure holder Mst. Sanjhari who never raised any objection and in case the land was taken for road she ought to have claimed compensation from the concerned department.

From the aforesaid, it appears that disputed area of the said plot was either acquired or taken for constructing a road. It is nowhere the case of the petitioner that the said land was reserved for chak road in Statement of Principle. On the contrary, during ''partal' it was found road and recorded as such.

In view of the aforesaid finding, the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A(2) of the Act was not at all maintainable. In case the land of any tenure-holder is acquired or taken by the Government for construction of road, the objection cannot be filed during consolidation proceedings.

In this view of the matter, the objection filed by the petitioner has rightly been rejected and there is no scope of interference 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.