Allowed

Ram Niwas v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Mahamaya Nagar and Another

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2020WRIB/6567/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court held that a subsequent transferee could not reopen chak allotment proceedings that had attained finality against the predecessor. The revision filed by the respondent was declared not maintainable and the impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 20.07.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside.

Ram Niwas Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation Mahamaya Nagar… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

AFR

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 6567 of 2006 Petitioner :- Ram Niwas Respondent :- Dy. Director Of Consolidation Mahamaya Nagar And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Chandra Yadav,Ram Sanehi Yadav,Rekha Singh,Vijendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Aditya,R.C. Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner arises out of the proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on a revision filed by the respondents.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision filed by the contesting respondents was not maintainable. It has been submitted that the order of the Settlement Consolidation Officer challenged before the revisional court was dated 05.09.2004. The revision itself has been filed after the contesting respondents obtained a sale deed of the entire chak of Shri Suresh Chandra on 08.11.2005. It is also contended that the order dated 05.09.2004 had attained finality against Suresh Chandra and, therefore, the contesting respondents, who was a transferee from Suresh Chandra, after the chak allotment in favour of Suresh Chand attained finality, was clearly not maintainable.

¶8

The contesting respondent had purchased the entire chak of Suresh Chandra with open eyes and after the allotment of chaks in his favour has become final and, therefore, the transferee did not get any right to challenge the allotment made in favour of Suresh Chandra.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to support the impugned order but has not been able to show as to how his revision was maintainable, he being a subsequent transferee after the allotment made in favour of his predecessor in interest had attained finality.

¶10

In view of the above foregoing discussions and since in my considered opinion, it was not open for a subsequent transferee to re-open proceedings of chak allotment which had attained finality against his predecessor in interest, the revision itself was not maintainable and for the same reason the impugned revisional order, which allows the revision cannot be sustained and must necessarily be set aside.

¶11

Accordingly, I allow this writ petition and set aside the order dated 20.07.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶12

No costs.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.10.2020 Shivangi

Ram Niwas v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Mahamaya Nagar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Mahamaya Nagar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mishri Lal Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Pawan Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Rajat Kumar and 2 Others Vs Sri Mukesh Kumar and Another

Faimida Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Baghpat and 8 Others

Islam and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 8 Others

Irfan Khan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others