ABDUL QAIYUM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, AZAMGARH AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-342
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 10,2006

ABDUL QAIYUM Appellant
VERSUS
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Azamgarh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) The writ was allowed vide order dated 4.7.2005. Thereafter, an application has been moved on behalf of respondent No. 8 that notices of the writ petition were never served upon him and the order was passed ex-parte without hearing him. The order sheet indicates that the notices were issued but further acknowledgement nor undelivered cover were received back after service. As such vide order dated 4.2.2005 service of notice on the respondents was deemed to be sufficient.
(2.) However, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, since respondent No. 8 was not served the judgment dated 4.7.2005 is liable to be recalled and after recalling the same, the matter has again been heard on merits.
(3.) The dispute relates to plot No. 37. Certain area of the said plot was recorded as abadi of the petitioner and a part of the -slime was placed in the khata of Gaon Sabha and was used a passage. During consolidation operation, the part of the area which was placed in the khata of the Gaon Sabha was earmarked for manure pits. Since it was situate right in front of abadi of the petitioner and its existence would have created sanitary problem and would have been injuries to health of the family members, an objection was filed by the petitioner with a prayer that after fixing the exchange ratio the said area be included in the chak of the petitioner and equal valuation be taken chak out from his proposed chak and be reserved for manure pits. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.5.1982 rejected the objection on the ground that the area in dispute is chak out and as such cannot be allotted in the chak of the petitioner. The order of the Consolidation Officer was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 10.2.1983 after making spot inspection allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved respondent Nos. 3 to 9 filed a revision. The Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 7.10.1983 allowed tire revision and set aside the appellate order.;


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