Petitioner failed to appear to press the writ petition regarding allotment of chak. The court observed that the Consolidation Authority followed principles of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, taking care of party interests, and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner is dismissed from the writ petition.
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. - 62
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 48208 of 2013 Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Yadav,Janardan Prasad Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of the respondents.
This writ petition is directed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 04.04.2013 in the matter of allotment of chak. Even, when present case was first argued on 09.09.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to file certain documents on record but it appears that no such document has been filed thereafter.
Even otherwise, in the matter of allotment of chak, this Court can only interfere, in case where the principles contained under Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has not been followed.
From perusal of the order impugned, it transpires that the Consolidation Authority has taken good care of interest of the parties in the matter of allotment of chak and the alteration have been properly done under the order impugned.
The writ petition lacks merit, it is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 3.8.2018 sailesh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition can be interfered with when principles of Section 19 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were followed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nagendra Kumar
Dy. Director Of Consolidation
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
