Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI
Ram Vriksh – Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Case called out in the revised list.
2. Heard Dr. R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Bhatt for the petitioner and Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent/ opposite party no.1.
3. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that Sri M.S. Khan Advocate alongwith Sri Amir Hasan Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 (now deceased). However no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2.
4. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased opposite party no.2 were substituted as opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 in the array of parties vide order dated 05.09.2024.
5. The Office report dated 14.08.2024 shows that the notices were sent to opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 but were not received back, as such the service of notice upon opposite parties no. 2/1 and 2/2 is deemed sufficient as per Rules of the Court.
6. The facts of the case, in nutshell, as culled out from the material available on record are that the petitioner and opposite party no.2 are the tenure holders of Chak No.251 and Chak No 180 respectively. The area of chak ori
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....
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.
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 consolidation authorities must allot compact areas reflecting legal rights under Section 19(1)(e), ensuring valid reasons for any deviations from the standard principles of allotment.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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 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.
Consolidation authorities must adhere to statutory provisions in allotting chaks, ensuring tenure holders receive a compact area at their largest holding and providing reasons for any deviations.
Consolidation authorities must adhere to statutory provisions when allotting chaks, ensuring tenure holders receive compact areas near their largest holdings.
Consolidation authorities must adhere to statutory provisions when allotting chak(s) and provide justifications for deviations to ensure equitable treatment of tenure holders.
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
