Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAON SABHA (GRAM PANCHAYAT), MANAI versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MIRZAPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gaon Sabha (Gram Panchayat), Manai v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Mirzapur And Others - WRIT - B No. 1421 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 454 (9 January 2007)

 

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

Court No. 40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1421 of  2005

Gaon Sabha (Gram Panchayat),

Village Manai, Tehsil Chunar, Mirzapur

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur and others                                                                              

                       

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

Facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under:

An objection was filed by contesting respondents no. 3 to 5 under Section 20 of the  U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that chak-road and chak-nali has been carved out in between their chaks and same may be shifted towards northern side of plot no. 35 in order to maintain compactness of chaks. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 13.12.2000 dismissed their objection on the ground that since chak-road is linked with other chak-road situate  on eastern side as such it would not be appropriate to  change  the position of chak-road. Contesting respondents no. 3 to 5 filed an appeal challenging the said order. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 25.1.2003 allowed the appeal. Against the said order, petitioner-Gaon Sabha filed recall application on the ground that relief in appeal was only with regard to nali whereas chak-road has also been disturbed without there being any demand or opportunity of hearing as such the order may be recalled. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 25.6.2004 again allowed the appeal and shifted the position of chak-road. Not satisfied with the appellate order, respondent no. 3 filed a revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 18.10.2004 allowed the revision, set aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation and maintained the earlier order dated 25.1.2003. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner-Gaon Sabha has approached this Court.

It has been urged by learned counsel for petitioners that without there being any relief claimed by contesting respondents with regard to chak-road, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have disturbed the chak-road. It has further been urged that Consolidation Officer after making spot inspection rejected the claim of respondents for shifting chak-road on the ground that since it is linked with other chak-road situate in eastern side, it would not be appropriate to make change in the chak-road. Without considering the said finding based on spot inspection, Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation have shifted chak-road without considering the loss and inconvenience which will be caused to the entire village.

In reply, it has been submitted that grievance of contesting respondents was for nali and chak-road but on account of typographical mistake chak-road was left out to be mentioned in appeal and the consolidation authorities have allowed the claim of contesting respondents with regard to chak-road. It has further been urged that in case nali and chak-road are shifted to northern side of plot, no one will be aggrieved by the same or suffer any loss.

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

A perusal of grounds of appeal filed as Annexure '3' to the writ petition clearly goes to show that no relief was claimed in appeal with regard to chak-road. Only prayer made in appeal was to shift chak-nali  in between plot no. 35 towards eastern side of plot no. 35. Settlement Officer Consolidation while considering the appeal also shifted chak-road. On the recall application filed by petitioner, matter was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation and again appeal was allowed. However, without any discussion or reasoning`, it was mentioned that appeal is being allowed and this will affect chaks no. 28, 29 and chak-road. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on the ground that order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation is devoid of any reasons. He, however, without considering the fact that no relief was claimed with regard to chak-road maintained the earlier order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.1.2003. Even though Settlement Officer Consolidation while passing the order dated 25.6.2004 may not have recorded any reasons for allowing appeal but it was incumbent upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have considered entire case and in particular whether any relief with regard to chak-road was claimed by contesting respondents in appeal or not or whether it was left out on account of typing mistake as suggested by learned counsel appeal for respondents. It was also incumbent upon him to consider dispute in the light of finding recorded by Consolidation Officer in its judgement dated 13.12.2000 that it was not appropriate to make any change in the position of chak as it is linked with other chak-road situate in the  eastern side of plot no. 35. Deputy Director of Consolidation without adverting himself to the real dispute wrongly and illegally maintained the order dated 25.1.2003 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, impugned order dated 18.10.2004 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation  cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for afresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of observations made herein above after spot inspection himself as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

9.1.2007.

Dcs.


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.