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


Asrar Ahmad v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Moradabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 49049 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15455 (6 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. 49049 of 2006

Asrar Ahmad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Ayub Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. At the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer, the petitioner was allotted chak at plot nos. 359 & 89 which were his original holdings. Being satisfied with the proposed allotment, the petitioner did not file any objection. However, other tenure-holders of the village filed objections which were decided by the Consolidation Officer but the chak of the petitioner was not affected. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, respondent nos. 5 & 6 preferred an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation  vide order dated 20.11.2003 allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and made certain changes in the chak of the petitioner, against which he preferred a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation  vide impugned order dated 11.5.2006 has dismissed the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that Settlement Officer Consolidation  has wrongly taken out certain area from plot no. 359 which is situate adjacent to the road thus causing irreparable loss to him. A finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  that the petitioner has been allotted area of plot no. 359 proportionate to his share adjacent to the road. A further finding has been recorded that the second chak of the petitioners is on plot no. 89 which is his original holding.

It has been vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has wrongly and illegally taken out area of plot no. 359 which was valuable land of commercial value situate adjacent to the road side.

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

A perusal of the amendment chart of the Settlement Officer Consolidation goes to show that only certain area of plot no. 359 was taken out from the chak of the petitioner. A perusal of the grounds of revision filed as annexure-4 to the writ petition goes to show that no such ground was taken by the petitioner before the revisional court that he has been deprived of the entire area of plot no. 359 situate on the road side as has been very strongly canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also confirmed that petitioner has been allotted area of plot no. 359 proportionate according to his share adjacent to road side.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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.