for example: TATA AIG

  for example: Indian Contract Act

  for example: Ratan Tata

  for example: Negotiable Instruments Act

w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Nandu v/s Deputy Director of Consolidation & Others

    Consolidation Case No. 116 of 2014

    Decided On, 19 February 2014

    At, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench


    For the Appellant: Onkar Nath Tiwari, Advocate. For the Respondents: Azad Khan, D.K. Singh Chauhan, Advocates.

Judgment Text

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Shri D.K. Singh Chauhan, had filed caveat on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Today, he has filed his power on behalf of respondent No. 4, which is taken on record. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused on record.

2. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to allotment of chaks. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a small tenure holder and he was possessed of a single plot, namely plot No. 44. He was not allotted a chak on his holding only but has been allotted a udan chak of plot Nos. 317,364,367 and 368.

3. Against the proposed allotment by the ACO, the petitioner preferred an objection, which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21.4.2011. The order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by the con testing respondents by means of an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 5.9.2012 whereby the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and the position as existing at the ACO stage with restored. This order has been affirmed in revision. Hence this writ petition.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he has allotted a udan chak. He has been also submitted that the original holding of the petitioner was near the Highway and therefore he was liable to be allotted a chak there. This contentions of the petitioner have not been accepted by the two Courts below.

5. A perusal of the order impugned shows that the contention of the petitioner has not been accepted on the reasoning that a compromise was entered into between the contesting respondents and that the contesting respondent No. 4 had given in writing that his original holding at plot No. 46, be allotted the contesting respondent No. 3.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has no concern with plot No. 46. He is original holder of plot No. 44 and therefore was not bound by any compromise between the contesting respondents, who were not the original holders of plot No. 44. In view of the above the order impugned calls for interference in the exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondents states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. Accordingly I am deciding the writ petition finally.

8. Under the circumstances and for the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 24.1.2014 and 5.9.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing the parties concerned. Although the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have been quashed, I am remanding the case to the Deputy Director of Consolidation so as to shorten the litigation.

9. Accordingly the writ

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. However it is clarified that no delivery of possession will be effected on the basis of this order. Delivery of possession, if any, shall take place in accordance with the orders to be passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in pursuance of this order.