Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAFIQ KHAN versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SITAPUR CAMP & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shafiq Khan v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Sitapur Camp & Others - WRIT - B No. 59031 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 18261 (28 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  59031 of 2006

Shafiq Khan...............Petitioner

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation , Sitapur Camp, Shahjahanpur & Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition arises out of chak allotment proceedings. Against the proposed allotment, an objection under Section 20(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by respondent no. 3 who is brother of the petitioner on the  ground that the he was not given chak on his original holdings. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 10.2.2004 allowed the objection. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no. 2 filed an appeal, which was rejected, vide order dated 23.7.2004. Revision filed by the respondent no. 2 was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 23.3.2006. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner moved an application for being impleaded in the proceedings, the said application was filed on the ground that he has been baldy affected by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and since respondent no. 2 was claiming chak which was allotted at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer as such in case the revision is allowed the petitioner will get the land allotted in the chak of respondent no. 2.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was badly affected by the order of the Consolidation Officer as such he was a necessary party in the revision but he was not given any opportunity of hearing though he has filed an application for being impleaded as a party.

I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From a perusal of the record, it does not appear that the petitioner was a party in the proceedings   either at the stage of Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer Consolidation  or Deputy Director of Consolidation . For the first time, he moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation  on the ground that in case revision of respondent no. 2 was allowed he would  be entitle to allotment of chak proposed at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that as to how he has been affected by the orders passed in dispute between respondents no. 2 and 3. If he was aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on the objection of respondent no. 3, appropriately he ought to have filed an appeal against the said order. Even in his impleadment application moved before the Deputy Director of Consolidation  in revision filed by respondent no. 2, there is no averment that he is affected either by the order of the Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer Consolidation. The only ground on which impleadment was sought is that in case the said revision was allowed he would be entitled to get the allotment of chak at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer.

Since the revision filed by respondent no. 2 was dismissed, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said order. Even otherwise the relief claimed in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Deputy Director of Consolidation  to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The revision filed by respondent no. 2 was finally decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation  and no prayer for certiorari has been sought for quashing the said order. Without claiming relief of certiorari a mandamus to provide an opportunity of hearing in proceedings, which have already been decided, cannot be granted.

In view of aforesaid discussion, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.

Dt.28.10.2006


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.