In this writ petition, the High Court rejected the challenge to an order dated 18.9.2003 regarding land consolidation allotments. The Court held there was no illegality, procedural error, or perversity in the impugned order based on the evidence on record.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 46488 of 2003 Petitioner :- Brij Lal Respondent :- D.D.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.B. Singh,Rajesh Pachauri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Saxena,Anand Prakash Paul,B.N. Rai,Brij Bhushan Paul,Pradeep Chandra,V. Rai
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Standing Counsel representing respondent no. 1 and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri B.B. Paul, counsel for respondents are present.
During the consolidation operations held in the village, respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed objections under Section 21(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') which was disposed of by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 30.4.1999. Not satisfied with the order dated 30.4.1999 passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed Appeal Nos. 845 and 674 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was partly allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his judgment and order dated 8.7.1999. Still not satisfied with the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed Revision Nos. 1743 and 2033 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before respondent no. 1 who passed the order dated 23.10.2000 and the allotments of chak were amended by respondent no. 1 vide his aforesaid order. Subsequently, the petitioner as well as respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed applications before respondent no. 1 praying for recall of the order dated 23.10.2000. Respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 23.7.2003 allowed the recall applications and restored the cases to its original number by setting-aside the order dated 23.10.2000. However, subsequently respondent no. 1, after hearing the parties, passed the order dated 18.9.2003 holding that amendment in the allotments of chak as made through the order dated 23.10.2002 does not require any modification. The order dated 18.9.2003 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
I have perused the records and the judgments of the courts below. The order dated 18.9.2003 passed by respondent no. 1 is according to law and suffers from no illegality. There is no procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order. The order is based on evidence on record and there is no perversity in the findings recorded in the impugned order.
The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 30.3.2018/Satyam
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order dated 18.9.2003 passed by the state authority is liable to be set aside.
Brij Lal
D.D.C. & Others
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
