JAGAR NATH ALIAS BAIJ NATH Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR
LAWS(ALL)-1994-2-66
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 04,1994

JAGAR NATH ALIAS BAIJ NATH Appellant
VERSUS
JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, GHAZIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.R.Misra - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by orders of the Consolidation Authorities in proceeding under section 20 of the U. P, Consolidation of Holdings Act, and, hence this petition.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is small tenure holder. THE original plots held by him were 624/2, area 1 bigha 15 biswa and 5 dhoor with 1/3 share ; 251, 268/1, 268/2 and 268/3 area 1 bigha, 7 biswa 13 dhoor with 1/8 share and plot no. 618, area 7 biswa situate in village. Pathara, pargana Jamania, district Ghazipur, The petitioner was not allotted any chak on his original holding. He, therefore, filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer against the proposed allotment made by Assistant Consolidation Officer. Appeal and revision also met the same fate and, therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court by means of the present petition. Sri Namwar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the plots of the petitioners, namely plot nos. 624 and'618, as well as other plots were situated near Abadi. Despite his request and demand, the petitioner has not been allotted a single inch of land on his original holding, nor any land has been allotted to him which may be said to be near his original holding. Thus, the judgments and orders of the respondents are liable to be set aside by this Court.
(3.) TWO counter affidavits have been filed-one by Sri Kailash Upadhyay and the. other by Sri Dey Das Upadhyay. Apart from hearing learned counsel for the respondents, I have also gone through the aforesaid two counter affidavits and have carefully considered the whole materials available on records. On behalf of respondent no. 6, it has been contended that he has been allotted a chak on plot nos. 618 and 619. Respondent no. 9 is co- sharer of a larger area in plot no. 618 as compared to petitioner. So far as plot no. 619 is concerned, this is not a plot owned by petitioner and, as such, according to the, learned counsel for the respondents no adjustment or variation,. so far as chak of respondent no. 6 is concerned, is called for.;


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