Dismissed

Lal Ji v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2020WRIC/12110/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging revenue orders directing chakroad construction. Finding the petitioner's dispute based on conflicting evidence regarding land maps, the Court held that such matters are not suitable for writ interference and other remedies existed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by Lal Ji against the impugned order directing chakroad construction was dismissed.

Lal Ji Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12110 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Lal Ji Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Km. Surabhi,Sudeep Kumar,Sunil Kumar Singh,Vikas Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Order on Civil Misc. Exemption Application No.3 of 2020 and Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.4 of 2020.

¶6

In view of the fact that the writ petition has already been dismissed, no orders are required to be passed on exemption as well as impleament application.

¶7

Order Date :- 9.9.2020 Jyotsana

¶8

Court No. - 64

¶9

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12110 of 2020

¶10

¶11

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶12

Order on writ petition.

¶13

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed against impugned order dated 27.6.2020. Through the impugned order dated 27.6.2020, the Deputy District Magistrate, Tehsil Phoolpur, District Prayagraj has directed that a chakroad be constructed on Plot No.836 as shown in the existing revenue records. In the order dated 27.6.2020, the Deputy District Magistrate also records the fact that Plot No.836 has been demarcated on the spot in presence of the villagers.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that the chakroad is being wrongly constructed on Plot No.836 which has been marked as "ABCD" in the map submitted by the petitioner and annexed as Annexure No.'1' to the writ petition. A further grievance has been made by the petitioner that the revenue authorities have also illegally been trying to construct the chakroad on the eastern side of Plot No.837 which has been marked as "EFGH" in the self-prepared map annexed by the petitioner.

¶16

In pursuance to the different orders passed by this Court, the Standing Counsel has submitted his instructions and also the map prepared on 27.6.2020 as well as the extract of the consolidation map of the village.

¶17

A perusal of the documents, especially the extract of consolidation map submitted by the Standing Counsel indicates that the chakroad does exist on Plot No.836 and it has been shown as such in the consolidation map.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, no error can be attributed to the revenue authorities in constructing a chakroad on Plot No.836. In fact, the self-prepared map of the petitioner annexed as

¶19

Annexure No.'1' to the writ petition itself records a noting made by the petitioner himself that the area marked as "ABCD" has been falsely traced as chakroad in the final map. The authenticity of the final map cannot be tested in the present proceedings under Article 226 and the petitioner has other remedies available to him, in case, he is aggrieved by the final consolidation map.

¶20

So far as the contention of the petitioner that a chakroad is being illegally constructed on the eastern side of Plot No.837 is concerned, the Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received by him denies the aforesaid fact as the map submitted by the Standing Counsel does not show that any chakroad or construction have been made by the revenue authorities on the area marked as "EFGH" in the map submitted by the petitioner.

¶21

The said dispute cannot be decided on the basis of different affidavits and documents filed by the petitioner and the Standing Counsel.

¶22

The petitioner has other remedies against the orders passed by the revenue authorities, if any chakroad is being constructed on any plot other than a plot shown as chakroad in the final consolidation map.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

Order Date :- 9.9.2020 Jyotsana

Lal Ji v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Ji v. State of U P and 3 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

Shambhoo Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Ramwati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kishan Pal Vs Chief Development Officer and 6 Others

Indar Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dhanpati and 27 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Uma Kant Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others