Back
DINESH PATHAK
Ramsajeevan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no.4 as well as learned Standing Counsel.
2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they have illegally been dislodged from their largest original holding in violation of the provisions as enunciated under Section 19(1)(e) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity U.P.C.H. Act).
3. Facts culled out from the record are that in provisional consolidation scheme petitioner no.1 has been proposed chak no.265 at two places; first chak over plot no.521 measuring area 0.504 hectare and second chak over plot nos.464, 465, 466, 467, 480 and 481/2 measuring area 0.360 hectare, total seven plots measuring area 0.864 hectare. Likewise, petitioner no.2 has been proposed Chak No.213 at three places; first chak over plot nos.515, 516 and 512 measuring area 0.250 hectare, second chak over plot no.521 measuring area 0.275 hectare and third chak over plot nos.158/2, 159/1, 160, 157/7, 194, 195 and 196/1 measuring area 1.532 hectare, total 11 plots measuring area 2.057 hectare. During the consolidation operation, respondent no.4 has purchased the property, accordingly, her sep
The court upheld the Deputy Director's adjustments in land allocation, finding no violation of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, as petitioners failed to show prejudice or illegality.
The court upheld the D.D.C.'s order modifying chak allotments, affirming that administrative decisions should not be interfered with unless clear illegality or injustice is shown.
The court upheld the DDC's order on chak allotment, finding no substantial displacement of the petitioner or loss of irrigation sources, emphasizing the need for evidence to support claims.
The modification of plot allocation that renders it unfit for cultivation contradicts the purpose of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, requiring respect for original allocations essential for e....
A chak holder's entitlement can only be altered where existing agricultural rights and irrigation sources are preserved, underscoring the importance of statutory compliance in land allocation.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court mandated strict compliance with prior judicial orders by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, ensuring that adjustments to chak holdings do not violate past rulings.
The court upheld the legality of Chak allotment under the U.P.C.H. Act, affirming adherence to principles of rectangulation and consideration of irrigation sources.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
