Back
DINESH PATHAK
Jata Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Pathak, J.)
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as learned counsel for the private respondents no.3 & 4 and perused the record on Board.
3. The petitioners have shown their grievance against the order dated 18.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') in Revision No.0067 of 2021 filed on behalf of Hausla Prasad (respondent no.4) and Revision No.0068 of 2021 filed on behalf of Prabhawati Devi (respondent no.3) whereby respective chaks of the petitioners have been disturbed.
4. Facts culled out from the record are that the instant writ petition is arising out of chak allotment proceeding. In provisional consolidation scheme, Jata Shankar (petitioner no.1) has been proposed chak no.154 and Muneem Shankar (petitioner no.2) has been proposed chak no.332. Likewise, respondent no.3 has been proposed chak no.257 and Haushila Prasad (respondent no.4) has been proposed chak no.607. Having been dissatisfied with their chaks, respondents no.3 & 4 have filed objection under Section 20 of
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 Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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 allotment of chak under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must adhere to the legal provisions regarding equitable distribution among co-sharers, as confirmed in the case.
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 revisional authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can alter allotments if it considers the comparative hardship of all tenure holders, ensuring a just exercise of jurisdiction.
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.
The court upheld the Deputy Director of Consolidation's order regarding chak allotment, emphasizing that no prejudice was shown by the petitioner and that the D.D.C. acted within legal provisions.
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
