High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sobaran Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - B No. 51318 of 2006  RD-AH 16158 (15 September 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ No. 51318 of 2006
Deputy Director of Consolidation Aligarh
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Bharat Pratap Singh learned counsel for the petitioner.
The facts in brief are that an application dated 15.12.1999 was filed by contesting respondent 3 praying that the chak road situate on the northern side of his chak may be demolished and in lieu thereof it may be allotted on southern side where his boring exists. The Consolidation Officer called for a report. The consolidator submitted his report dated 23.12.1999. The Assistant Consolidation Officer forwarded the same to the Consolidation Officer who in his turn referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a recommendation to accept the reference. Notices were issued and no objections were filed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 28.11.2000 accepted the reference. The petitioner after acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid alteration and adjustment made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation filed an application dated 15.7.2002 for recall of the said order along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 27.6.2006 dismissed the recall application of the petitioner on two grounds; firstly, no proper explanation for delay in filing the recall application has been submitted and secondly, since by order dated 28.11.2000, the petitioner is not at all affected as such the application is not maintainable.
It has vehemently been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly and illegally refused to condone the delay and on the facts and grounds mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay was liable to be condoned.
I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Apart from coming to the conclusion that the delay in filing the recall application is not liable to be condoned, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has also recorded a finding that the order dated 28.11.2000 does not affect the petitioner as such the application filed by him is not maintainable. A further finding has been recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation that there exist two chak roads one on eastern side and other on southern side of the chak of the petitioner and apart from above the road patari on the side of Nala can also be used for ingress and egress to his chak. Thus, the petitioner has three alternative ways to reach his chak and the assertion that by demolition of chak raod he would have no ingress and egress to his chak is factually not correct.
In view of aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and had rightly been rejected. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.
The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.