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


Ram Chandra & Another v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Basti & Others - WRIT - B No. 54814 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17558 (11 October 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.  54814 of 2006

Ram Chandra and Another...............Petitioners


Deputy Director of Consolidation , Basti

& Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav,  learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Yadav, appearing for contesting respondent no. 4.

The facts giving rise to the present dispute are as under;

On the onset of the consolidation proceedings, the petitioners filed an application under Section 5 C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the ''Act') seeking permission to raise construction on the land in dispute. Vide order dated 14.12.1992, Settlement Officer Consolidation  allowed the same and accorded permission for raising construction. Thereafter, Vide order dated 22.6.1994 passed by Consolidation Officer, the plot in dispute was recorded as ''samil jot abadi'. In the meantime, respondents no. 4 and 5 filed an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation to recall the order dated 14.12.1992 which was dismissed vide order dated 2.5.1994. Aggrieved, respondents no. 4 and 5 preferred a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation  vide impugned order dated 27.6.2006 allowed the same and set aside the order dated 14.12.1992 as well as order dated 2.5.1994 dismissing the recall application filed by the contesting respondents no. 4 and 5. The revision has been allowed on the ground that the land in dispute was jointly recorded as ''samil jot abadi' as such was out of purview of the consolidation operations.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that land in dispute came into his share on the basis of a private partition and as such the Deputy Director of Consolidation  has wrongly allowed the revision and set aside

the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation  by which he was accorded permission to raise construction on the plot in dispute. The case set up by the petitioners of having exclusive right over the plot in dispute on the basis of a private partition has travelled up to this Court between the parties in Writ Petition No. 50871 of 2006 which has been dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2006 holding that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to partition the land in dispute which was ''abadi'.

In view of the aforesaid fact that the plot in dispute is recorded as ''abadi', the Deputy Director of Consolidation  has rightly allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed on the application under Section 5 C of the Act in favour of the petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.

Dt. 11.10.2006


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.