Dismissed

Akhilesh Kumar Bajapai v. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri and 29 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022/63/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged orders bifurcating his allotted land chak and reducing its area. The High Court found no serious prejudice as the new chak included his original holding and the area reduction was within permissible limits, dismissing the petition as devoid of force. Relief: Order dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the impugned orders and issue mandamus is dismissed. No serious prejudice is found to the petitioner.

Akhilesh Kumar Bajapai Vs the Deputy Director of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 63 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Bajapai Respondent :- The Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Kheri And 29 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed his 'vakalatnama' on behalf of opposite party no.4, the same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and 2 as well as Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.3 i.e. Gaon Sabha and perused the record.

¶7

The instant petition has been moved by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2021 and order dated 31.10.2020 passed by the S.O.C., Lakhimpur Kheri with a further prayer for issuance of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the chak allotted to him at the A.C.O. and C.O. level.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by passing the impugned orders the S.O.C. as well as D.D.C., Lakhimpur Kheri has unnecessarily interfered in the chak allotted to the petitioner vide orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and by interfering in the orders of the Consolidation Officer, one chak, which was allotted to the petitioner has been bifurcated unnecessarily into two chaks and the area of the chak has also been reduced.

¶9

It is further submitted that there was no need to disturb the chak allotted to the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer as the surplus land was also available and there was no need to alter the chak which was originally allotted to the petitioner by the orders of the consolidation officer.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 as well as learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha submits that the petitioner would not be said to have prejudiced by the order of the D.D.C., Bahraich dated

¶11

09.09.2021 as only bifurcation of the chak originally allotted to him has been made and having regard to the fact that one of the chak, which has been carved out by the impugned order has been given on the original gata of the petitioner and he could not be said to have been aggrieved by passing of the impugned order and, therefore, the instant petition has been presented only on the basis of apprehension and, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired from the record that earlier, as is apparent from extract C.H. Form-23 available on record that originally the holding of the petitioner was comprising of four Gata numbers i.e.759 M., 126 M., 104 M., 123 M., while through the impugned judgment two chaks have been allotted in favour of the petitioner namely Gata No. 746/2 M. comprising 0.251 Hectare and Gata No. 104 M. comprising 0.597 Hectare. In this view, one of the chak has been allotted to the petitioner on his original holding and the total area of the allotted chaks appears to be 0.848 Hectare. Thus, no serious prejudice appears to have been caused by the impugned orders to the petitioner, as one of the proposed chak has been given to him on his original holding and the area of his holding has been reduced within permissible limits.

¶13

Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, no serious prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioner and the petition appears to be devoid of any force and is dismissed as such.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.2.2022 Praveen

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.02.10 11:27:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Kumar Bajapai v. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri and 29 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Bajapai v. the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri and 29 Others

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

Shahjahan Bano Vs Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil Sadar,Gonda and Another

Vikas Soni Vs State of U.P.Thru.Addl. Chief Secy Revenue Lko and Others

Sursati Devi Vs Tehsildar,Teh.Beekapur Distt.Ayodhya and Another

Sanjay Singh Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil Haidergarh,Barabanki and Others

Rajkumari Vs Sub District Magistrate Amethi Tehsil Amethi and Others

Asha and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko and Others