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


Krishna Devi v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Bijnor & Others - WRIT - B No. 48438 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16789 (25 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. 48438   of 2006

Krishna Devi        


Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor and others          

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Akshaya Kumar, learned counsel for the  petitioner.

This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Against the proposed allotment, the respondent no. 3 filed an objection claiming that he is in possession over plots no. 103/1 and 103/2 on the basis of private partition as such the same may be allotted in his chak and if it is not possible then his second chak on the western side of plot no. 110 be abolished and he be allotted area of the plot in which Tube-well exists. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.12.2004 allowed the said objection. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. Two other appeals were also filed, one by the respondent no. 4 and the other by the respondent no. 3. The Settlement Officer Consolidation  consolidated all the appeals and vide order dated 20.3.2005 allowed the appeals filed by the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 while the appeal filed by the respondent no. 3 was dismissed. The order was passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation  on the basis of alleged agreement between the parties  with regard to plot no. 103. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 3 filed a revision which was partly allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 10.8.2006.

The dispute is between the mother and the two sons. Respondents no. 3 and 4 are the sons of the petitioner.

The Deputy Director of Consolidation  has recorded a finding that the respondent no. 3 has purchased plot having an area 0.253 Air of plot no. 103 from his mother, the petitioner, and as such he is entitled to allotment of the said area in his chak and he accordingly took out the said area from the chak of the petitioner and allotted  in the chak of respondent no. 3. The said valuation was adjusted in the second chak of the petitioner on plot no. 114. The Deputy Director of Consolidation  has further recorded a finding that by making this adjustment, the petitioner also gets one compact chak. The other relief claimed by the petitioner with regard to the allotment of western portion of plot no. 105 was disallowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  on the ground that it was not his original holdings. Once the petitioner transferred the area of plot no. 103 in favour of the respondent no. 3, the same has rightly been adjusted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  in the chak of respondent no. 3. The petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance with regard to the same.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order/judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.



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.