Lalji v. D.D.C.
Case brief
What is this about?
This court allowed a writ petition challenging an order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that altered land plots during consolidation. The court set aside the order for violating statutory limits and for ignoring the petitioner's hardship. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order dated 28.3.1985 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh orders within three months.
What the court decided
Court No. - 22
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 7563 of 1985
Petitioner :- Lalji Respondent :- D.D.C. Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S.Misra Counsel for Respondent :- S.P.Tewari,A.K.Shukla,L.P. Tewari,S.C.,V.B.Khare
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
- Heard Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1, Shri A.K. Shukla representing respondent No. 3 and Shri Prakash Chandra Tiwari representing respondent No. 2. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 4.
- The present writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953').
- The facts of the case are that the total area of the original holdings of the petitioner was 1.62 acres and during the consolidation proceedings in the village the petitioner was allotted a chak on Plot No. 567M by the concerned Consolidation Officer. Plot No. 567M was the original holding of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the said respondents alleged that they had their private source of irrigation on the aforesaid plot. Plot No. 567M was also the largest holding of the respondents. Respondent No. 2 was also allotted a chak on Plot No. 567M but his share in the aforesaid plot was considerably reduced.
- Aggrieved by the arrangement of chak as made by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 2 filed Appeal No. 292/264 under Section 21(2) of the Act, 1953 before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.S.O.C.'), which was partly allowed by the A.S.O.C. vide its order dated 31.8.1982. Respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the order dated 31.8.1982 passed by
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation could alter the chak allotment without Director of Consolidation permission exceeding the 25% limit.
Whether the lower authority considered the hardship caused to the petitioner by disturbing the allotted chak.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Lalji
- respondent
D.D.C.
Coram
Salil Kumar Rai
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIB/7563/1985
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court