LAKHPATI Vs. D D C
LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-378
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 28,2014

LAKHPATI Appellant
VERSUS
D D C Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.1.1993 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, (for short, DDC) passed in Revision Nos. 1758, 1752, 1753, 1787 and 1814 under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, CH Act). The actual prayer made therein is quoted hereinbelow: "(a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30th January 1993 vide annexure -3 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, to the extent it allotted plot no. 651 referred to above in the chak of the petitioner without affording opportunity of hearing to her on the question of the location of the additional area to be allotted in her chak, while maintaining the rest of the order."
(2.) THE writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks. The petitioner is chak -holder no. 287. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are chak -holders no. 22, while respondent no. 5 chak -holder no. 209.
(3.) I have heard Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijai Bahadur Verma, who represents respondent nos. 3 to 5. The petitioner was possessed of plot nos. 642, 640, 641 and 660, which were recorded exclusively in her name. She was recorded as co -sharer over plot nos. 651 and 235/60. At the Assistant Consolidation Officer (for short, ACO) stage, the petitioner was proposed a single chak of plot nos. 642, 640, 641 and 660, etc. She did not file any objection, being satisfied with the proposed allotment. However, her chak was modified by the order of the Consolidation Officer (for short, CO) whereby several objections were decided by a common order; as a consequence whereof, certain area was excluded from her single chak and the same was allotted on plot nos. 655, 636, 642, etc. This second chak is stated to be situate about 1 km away from the original holding of the petitioner and was an udan chak. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred appeal on the ground that she was a small tenureholder who had been proposed a single compact chak which had been modified and she had been allotted two chaks, one of which was udan, situated more than 1 km. from her original holding. It was prayed that this udan chak be abolished.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.