Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NASRUDDIN & ANOTHER versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MAU & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nasruddin & Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Mau & Others - WRIT - B No. 48883 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15486 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  48883 of 2006

Nasruddin & Another...............Petitioners

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation , Mau & Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava appearing for the contesting respondent no.3.

The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under;

The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Quresha Khatoon. An application was filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') claiming that she is dead and their names be recorded over the land in dispute. Proclamation was issued and since no objections were filed and the  proceedings were uncontested, the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.12.1994 allowed the said application and directed the names of the petitioners to be recorded in place of Quresha Khatoon. Subsequently an appeal against the said order was filed in the year 2005 by respondent no. 3 alleging therein that she was very much alive and the names of the petitioners were wrongly and illegally recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer treating her to be dead. Before the Settlement Officer Consolidation  the respondent no. 3 produced a copy of ''parivar' register in which she was shown as wife of Ishtiyaque Ahmad. The Settlement Officer Consolidation  also found that the alleged compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of which the order dated 15.12.1994 was passed has been verified by Mohd. Rashid Khan, Pradhan of village Basaratpur whereas the property in dispute is situated in village Galibpur. He also found that in the compromise the respondent no. 2 has been shown as resident of Mahatabpur in stead of Galibpur. On the basis of said facts and evidence, the Settlement Officer Consolidation  condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The same finding has been confirmed by the revisional court.

Both the facts finding courts have concurrently found that Quresha Khatoon/ respondent no. 3 was alive and mutation of their names has wrongly obtained by the petitioners showing her to be dead. Various irregularities in the compromise recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation also go to show that the order dated 15.12.1994 was surreptitiously obtained by the petitioners and the same has rightly been set aside.

In view of the aforesaid facts, no interference is called for in the impugned judgments. The writ petition accordingly fails, and is dismissed.

Dt.06.09.2006


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.