Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK
Sabir Ali – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 & 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for private respondent no.3 and perused the records.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, affirming the orders dated 13.03.2020 and 26.06.2020 passed by Consolidation Officer, whereby area of Plot No.557 has been corrected to be measuring area 1.015 hectare in place of measuring area 2.562 hectare and its exchange value has been fixed to be eighty (80) paise, respectively.
3. Facts culled out from the records are that instant writ petition is arising out of proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Plot No.557, which has been allotted in the Chak of Ramesh Chandra Sharma (respondent no.3), was kept out of the consolidation operation, vide order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the report dated 28.06.2017 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. At later stage, a recall/restoration application has been filed by respondent no.3 who is the tenure-holder. The said recall applicatio
Judicial review in consolidation cases is limited to determining substantial illegality or prejudice; a lack of demonstrated harm to the petitioner warrants dismissal of the challenge to administrati....
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 21(1), in determining the rightful allocation of land and valuation....
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 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 affirmed that orders of the Consolidation Officer are not subject to challenge under Article 226, and applications under Rule 109-A are not maintainable when related appeals are pending.
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
