Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.P.Misra
UMA SHANKAR
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
Decided On : 17 August 1999
Civil Misc. W. P. No. 932 of 1974
Interference - Deputy Director of Consolidation - The court held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no power to interfere in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation, as established in the case of Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1994 RD 290. The court quashed the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and remanded the matter for fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The Deputy Director of Consolidation interfered in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which was deemed impermissible under the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and remanded the matter for fresh decision in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Issues: Interference by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no power to interfere in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation, as established in the case of Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1994 RD 290.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the same afresh in accordance with the law.
List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the respondent is not present.
2. Heard Sri K. S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered in the findings recorded by the Consolida tion Officer and Settlement Officer, Con solidation, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon decisions in the case of Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1994 RD 290. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that the Deputy Director of Con solidation has no power to interfere in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Con solidation. From the record, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
4. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16-11-1973, passed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation, Mainpuri is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the same as afresh in accordance with law.
5. As none is present on behalf of the respondents, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.
.
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
