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


Brij Raj v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Azamgarh & Tohers - WRIT - B No. 51526 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16448 (20 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51526 of 2006

Brij Raj


Dy. Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri S. S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The facts as set out in the writ petition are as follows :

On  a large number of complaints filed by the tenure-holders of the village with regard to several irregularities and illegalities in fixing the valuation and exchange ratio, the Deputy Director of Consolidation  vide order dated 5.3.1993 set aside the provisional consolidation scheme and directed the Settlement Officer Consolidation  to prepare fresh consolidation scheme after re-determination of the valuation and exchange ratio of the plots.  A fresh provisional consolidation scheme was framed. Against the proposed allotment,  the petitioner filed an objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act'), which was rejected. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal. Not satisfied with the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner went up in revision. During pendency of the revision, the petitioner moved applications dated 13.6.2006 and 21.6.2006 that chak allotment proceedings had been undertaken without complying with the order dated 5.3.1993 and as such demarcation and delivery of possession of the entire village should be kept in abeyance. The petitioner with the same grievance approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34351 of 2006. This Court vide order dated 5.7.2006 while issuing notice to opposite parties no. 4 to 10 directed  the petitioner to move an application within fifteen days  before the Deputy Director of Consolidation  to expedite hearing of his revision. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 18.7.2006 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation  again raising the same grievance that provisional consolidation scheme has been framed without complying with the order dated 5.3.1993 and as such the proceedings for demarcation and delivery of chak of the entire village should be stayed. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the said application was moved in compliance of the order dated 5.7.2006 passed by this Court in his earlier writ petition but the application does not disclose that it was moved in the pending revision in as much as there is no reference of any revision number on the application and  the order passed on the said application goes to show that it was registered as miscellaneous case no. 54. The Deputy Director of Consolidation  vide order dated 31.6.2006 dismissed the application of the petitioner on the finding that from the perusal of records it becomes clear that exchange ratio was re-determined and thereafter fresh provisional consolidation scheme was framed and chaks have been carved out and the provisional consolidation scheme has also been confirmed under Section 23 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.8.2006 and to make actual compliance of the order dated 5.3.1993.

While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Consolidation  has recorded a categorical finding that the order dated 5.3.1993 has been carried out in as much as exchange ratio has been re-determined and thereafter fresh consolidation scheme has been framed. No material has been brought on record by the petitioner which may go to show that the said finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  is in any manner wrong or incorrect.

In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.

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.