High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Gur Prasad Singh v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. - 1826 of 1975  RD-AH 16998 (27 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 1826 of 1975
Gur Prasad & Others Vs. Dy.Director of Consolidation & Others
The parties are descendants of a common ancestor Harakh Singh. The petitioners are of the branch of Nageshwar Singh, one of the sons of Harakh Singh. The respondent no.9, Thakur Dayal Singh is the son of Jag Prasad Singh, another son of Harakh Singh. The other respondents are also descendants of Harakh Singh. There are two khatas in dispute in the present case- one is khata no.4/1 and the other is khata no.44/3. The dispute relates to the share of the parties. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioners as well as by the respondents Ram Deo Singh, Gobind Kumar Singh and Thakur Dayal Singh respondents 5,7 and 9. The Consolidation Officer decided the share of the parties. The Consolidation Officer found that the petitioners are entitled to the share of 19/48 in khata no.4/1. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, three appeals were filed- one was filed by the petitioners in respect of khata no.4/1, one was filed by Bhairo Singh @ Budhdhu Singh and one was field by respondents Ram Deo Singh & others in respect of khata no. 44/3. The Asstt. Settlement Officer, Consolidation decided all the appeals by a common order dated 14.12.71 and allowed the appeals. Against the order of the Asstt.Settlement Officer, Consolidation three separate revisions were filed by the petitioners and one revision was filed by the respondents Ram Deo Singh and others. All the four revisions were heard by the Dy.Director of Consolidation and were allowed by order dated 30.10.74. Against the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation the present petition has been filed.
I have heard Sri Tripathi B.G.Bhai counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S,.Maurya counsel for the respondent no.9, Thakur Dayal Singh.
The short submission of Sri Tripathi B.G.Bhai counsel for the petitioners is that the shares have not been properly calculated. He drew my attention to the operative part of the order of the Dy.Director of Consolidation and submitted that in respect of khata no.4/1 it has been found that the share of Gur Prasad and others is 58/198, of Bhairo Singh @ Budhdhu Singh is 19/192, of Ram Deo Singh is 19/192, of Champa Kali is 19/192 of Tahkur Dayal Singh is 19/192 and of Lakhan Singh is 19/192. If the shares are added the total comes to 153/192 which is not a whole number but a fraction..
Counsel for the respondent no.9 also submitted that the share in respect of khata no.44/3 has also not been correctly calculated. There appears to be some merit in the contention of the learned counsel that the Dy.Director of Consolidation has not correctly determined the shares. It is therefore appropriate that the matter should go back to him for fresh decision according to law.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Dy.Director of Consolidation dated 30.10.74 is set aside and the case is sent back to him for fresh determination of the shares of the parties in accordance with law. Sri Tripathi B.G.Bhai counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S.Maurya counsel for the respondent no.9 state that until the decision of the Dy.Director of Consolidation the parties be directed to maintain status quo. In the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to maintain status quo until the decision of the Dy.Director of Consolidation, who shall try to decide the case expeditiously.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.