Dismissed

Nazir Mohammad and Another v. D.D.C. Ghaziabad and Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2019WRIB/5876/1983

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioners, sole Bhumidhar claimants, had their objections rejected based on revenue records and lack of evidence. The court found no perversity in the lower authorities' findings under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition has been dismissed; interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Nazir Mohammad and Another Vs D.D.C. Ghaziabad and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5876 of 1983

¶3

Petitioner :- Nazir Mohammad And Another Respondent :- D.D.C. Ghaziabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.B.Nigam,Ashok Kumar Pandey,Harendra Singh,J.K.Shishodia,Mahesh Kumar Gupta,N.C. Dwivedi,Pradeep Singh,S.P. Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Sc..,J.D.Pradhan,V.S.Chaudhary,Yogendra Pal Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

No one appears for the respondents.

¶7

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, one of the counsel for the petitioners.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 2.2.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad, i.e., respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 1868 whereby the respondent no. 1 upheld and affirmed the order dated 12.3.1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 174 registered under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') as well as the order dated 30.11.1979 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Hapur in Appeal No. 65.

¶9

During the consolidation proceedings in the village, the petitioners claimed themselves to be the sole Bhumidhar of Khata No. 8 and filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 regarding the same. The claim of the petitioners was based on some Dastbardari dated

¶10

15.8.1924. The Consolidation Authorities rejected the claim of the petitioners based on the aforesaid Dastbardari as the same had never been implemented and relying on the revenue records relating to 1303 Fasli held that the petitioners were not the sole tenure holder of the disputed khata. The petitioners could not produce any evidence to substantiate their plea as raised before the Consolidation Authorities. The findings of the Consolidation Authorities are concurrent findings of fact based on evidence on record. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any perversity in the findings of the Consolidation Authorities and, therefore, the findings are not liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

The writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed . Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Satyam

Nazir Mohammad and Another v. D.D.C. Ghaziabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazir Mohammad and Another v. D.D.C. Ghaziabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalji Vs D.D.C.

Bechai Vs D.D.C.

Shanti Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Gorakh Vs A.D.C.

Bachchan @ Chengha Vs D.D.C. and Others

Bachchan @ Chengha and Anr. Vs the D.D.C. and Others