High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Surja v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Saharanpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 52878 of 2006  RD-AH 16647 (21 September 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52878 of 2006
Surja vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur & others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
The dispute relates to plot no. 1431/2 situate in village Dhaulapada, Pargana Sarsawan, Tehsil Nakud, district Saharanpur. In the Statement of Principle, the said plot was reserved for ''Harijan abadi'. An objection was filed by respondent no. 5 to keep the said plot out of consolidation proceedings which was dismissed on the ground that he may file an appeal against the order reserving it for ''Harijan abadi'. Thereafter, respondent no. 5 filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 28.4.2000 against which petitioner filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.8.2003 allowed the revision and remanded the case back to Settlement Officer Consolidation. After remand the matter was reconsidered and vide order dated 12.12.2005 the appeal of respondent no. 5 was again allowed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation made spot inspection and found that the abadi of respondent no. 5 exists on the said plot and the members of the consolidation committee as well as the Pradhan had no objection for the said plot to be taken out of consolidation proceedings as there was enough land for ''Harijan abadi'. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also confirmed the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Settlement Officer Consolidation never made any spot inspection and the appeal was allowed by him wrongly and illegally and no consent from the consolidation committee or Gram Pradhan was obtained.
In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation to the effect that spot inspection was done and concurrence of the members of the consolidation committee and Gram Pradhan was obtained.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation has very categorically mentioned in its order that on making spot inspection, he found that the abadi of the respondent no.5 exists on the plot in dispute and the members of the consolidation committee and Gram Pradhan have given their consent and had no objection to the plot being taken out from consolidation proceedings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also confirmed the said finding.
In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are not liable to be accepted. No material has been brought on record which may go to show that the said findings are factually wrong and incorrect.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no scope of 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.