Back
DINESH PATHAK
Israil Khan – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents are present. None is present for the private respondents. This Court, vide order dated 06.08.2024, has deemed the service of notice upon the private respondents sufficient.
2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.12.1989 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') partly allowing the revision no.2701 filed on behalf of the present petitioner.
3. Facts culled out from the record are that instant writ petition is arising out of chak allotment proceeding. During provisional consolidation scheme, present petitioner has been proposed chak no.48 at two places; first chak consists of plot nos.55, 66 etc. and second chak consists of plot nos.84, 85 etc. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer has illegally allotted the area for drainage lane being plot no. 56 through his plot no.55, therefore, area of drainage lane (plot no.56) may be taken out and his chak over plot no.55 may be carved out towards
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.
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 legality of Chak allotment under the U.P.C.H. Act, affirming adherence to principles of rectangulation and consideration of irrigation sources.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship of both parties when exercising jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court emphasized that tenure holders must be allocated chaks on original plots, and procedural fairness requires proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes.
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.
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
