Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMIL versus THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kamil v. The Dy. Director Of Consolidation, & Others - WRIT - B No. 52511 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16480 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52511 of 2006

Kamil vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chetan Chatterjee & Sri Irfan Choudhary, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

The dispute relates to plot no. 196/3, 195/2, 197/3, 200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208/3, 209/2, 210/2, 210/3, 211, 213 & 214 situate in village Bhura Tehsil Kairana, District Muzagffarnagar. The said plots were in the co-tenancy of the petitioner, his father, Mohd Umar father of respondent no. 4 and Kasim Ali each having 1/4th share. The petitioner filed an objection dated 7.6.2005 under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short ''the Act') to the effect that valuation of disputed plots should be enhanced to 12 anas instead of 9 anas. The said objection was filed with a considerable delay of about 23 years and hence was  accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation for condoning the delay. The explanation given was that the petitioner could not come to know the valuation of the said plots in time; as such the objection could not be filed within time and delay is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.6.2006 allowed the objection and enhanced the valuation of the plots from 9 anas to 12 anas. The plots in dispute which were allotted in the chak of contesting respondents were directed to be exchanged with the chak of the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents challenged the said order by filing an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 14.8.2006 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the contesting respondents went up in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

The Consolidation Officer called for a report from Assistant Consolidation Officer and without condoning the delay in filing the objection allowed the objection. The appellate court vide order dated 14.8.2006 dismissed the appeal filed by the contesting respondents. The revisional court has recorded a finding that the Consolidation Officer has made spot inspection but there is no memo of spot inspection on record nor the fact of spot inspection is verified from the order sheet. He has also held that there is absolutely no justification for enhancing the valuation and exchanging the chak after 22 years when the village was in the process of being denotified. From a perusal of the record, it becomes clear that no reasonable explanation was given by the petitioner for filing objection after 22 years. The only explanation given in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application was that he could not come to know of the valuation within time. The said averment was absolutely vague and cannot be said to constitute reasonable explanation for condoning in-ordinate delay of 22 years. Further there was no justification for the Consolidation Officer to have exchanged the chak of the parties especially, in view of the objection raised by the contesting respondents that they have made huge investment during this period in leveling the chaks.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation was rightly set aide by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  and the same calls for no interference by this court.

The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.

Dt.20.9.2006

Nd.


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.