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 Chhabiley v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Gorakhpur & Others - WRIT - B No. 62438 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19926 (23 November 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).


Court No.40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62438 of 2006

Ram Chhabiley vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,

Gorakhpur & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri K.K. Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition arises out of chak allotment proceeding. Against the proposed allotment, respondent no.4 filed an objection under Section 20 of the Act which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 28.11.2000. He preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 16.5.2001. Appeal was  filed by respondent no.5 claiming that private source of irrigation may be given in his chak and his six corner chak may be made rectangular and the shortfall of area of 0.754 hectare may be made good. The Settlement Officer Consolidation finding that respondent no.5 has wrongly been deprived of his private source of irrigation allowed the appeal. The revisional court while considering the revision filed by the peititoner has recorded a finding that his claim for allotment of plot nos. 238, 242, 245 in his chak is not justified as they are not his original holdings. A further finding has been recorded that claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot nos. 241, 243 & 1330 in his chak is also not justified as the said plots are in co-tenancy of the peititoner and other tenure-holders and the share of the petitioner is only 2/9 and the area of the said plots has already been given in his chak in accordance with the share. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also found that by the proposed allotment at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer and Consolidation Officer variation in the area of the original holding and chak allotted to him was more than 25% which has rightly been corrected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

It has vehemently been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that plot no. 1330 which was his original holding situated on the main road and is of commercial value has wrongly not been allotted in his chak.

The argument is totally misconceived. From a perusal of the amendment chart annexed along with the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is clear that some of area of plot no. 1330 has been allotted in the chak of the peititoner. Since the said plot is in co-tenancy of the petitioner and other tenure-holders, the same has been ratably allotted as per the share of the parties.

In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation which do not suffer from any infirmity, there is no scope of interference in the impugned orders by this court.

The writ petition 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.