RAM AKBAAL Vs. D D C
LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-333
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 06,2014

Ram Akbaal Appellant
VERSUS
D D C Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for the State -respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.3.1983 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (for short, the DDC) on a reference under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, the Act) which has been accepted by the DDC. This reference was prepared on an application filed by the Up -pradhan, Rampal, on 10.9.1982. This application was to the effect that plot nos. 300 and 301 were fraudulently included in chak no. 451 in CH Form -23. Chak no. 451 was carved out in the name of Sriram. The petitioner, Ram Akbaal, is the son of Sriram.
(3.) SRI V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that plots nos. 300 and 301, were recorded as 'parti qadeem'. These plots were valued and were included in his chak. It is further his case that these plots were low -lying land and the petitioner raised their level by investing a substantial sum of money. The entire process took over 5 years. It is, thereafter, after a gap of 9 years, that the complaint was made by respondent no. 3, whereupon the order impugned has been passed. Sri V.D. Ojha, on the strength of the aforementioned facts, has submitted that the Gaon Sabha never contested the proceedings, wherein these plots were allotted in the chak of the petitioner. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Gaon Sabha in the instant writ petition also. The complaint was made by a rank outsider, who had no locus in the matter. He has relied on paragraph 7 of the writ petition to buttress his contention. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition states that Ram Pal, respondent no. 3, was not the Pradhan and was never Pradhan of the village in question. He has further relied upon paragraph 14 of the writ petition to state that the observation of the DDC in the impugned order that the area of the petitioner's holding has increased by more than 40 percent on account of the consolidation operations is incorrect, and that increase in the area is below 25 percent.;


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