Dismissed

Harish Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , Sultanpur and Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2024/525/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of a revisional order initiating consolidation proceedings regarding a land area correction by the respondent. The court held that since the dispute related only to the respondent’s land, the petitioner was not a necessary party, and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the revisional order was dismissed.

Harish Chandra Vs Deputy Director of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37507

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 525 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Harish Chandra

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation , Sultanpur And Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Aslam Khan

¶7

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Uma Shankar Sahai

¶8

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the revisional order dated 16.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in the Revision No. 625/2024, (Indrajeet Singh vs. Gaon Sabha Aldemaunoorpur).

¶11

On being asked from the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned counsel for the applicant whether they want to file any counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit respectively, they have stated that they are not inclined to file any counter affidavit or rejoinder affidavit and they are ready to argue the matter finally. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided at the admission stage.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the brother of the petitioner was the auction purchaser of the cold storage situated at plot no. 171/1 and after the settlement between the petitioner and his brother in the civil court, the cold storage has come in the share of the petitioner, which is situated at gata no. 171/1 area 3 biswa 10 dhur.

¶13

It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had preferred an application before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as "C.O.") for correction of area of gata no.171/2, the area of which has wrongly been entered as 2 biswa only whereas it should be 3 biswa 10 dhur and new plot number is 766. The application of the respondent no. 2 was rejected by the C.O. by order dated 29.09.1980 against which the respondent no. 2 has preferred an appeal in which the petitioner had moved an application for impleadment as a necessary and proper party and the said application of the petitioner was allowed by the appellate authority by its order dated 23.11.2023. Against the said order allowing the impleadment of the petitioner in the appeal, the respondent no. 2 had preferred a revision which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to decide the same. According to the petitioner, his valuable right to contest the matter had been taken away and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred.

¶14

It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 is claiming his right on the land on which the cold storage is constructed and running i.e. on the land of the petitioner and the petitioner is the necessary party to be heard in the appeal pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation

¶15

On the other hand, Shri U. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the respondent no. 2 is contesting for area of his land i.e. gata no. 171/2 now the new plot number is 766 and he is not claiming any part of the land which belongs to the petitioner i.e. old gata no. 171/1 and new plot number 765. Once the respondent no. 2 is not asking for any change regarding the land on which the cold storage of the petitioner is constructed and running and also made this clear in his appeal that both are having different gata numbers then the impleament of the petitioner is not necessary as a necessary and

¶16

proper party.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the records, the position which emerges out in the present case is that the petitioner was apprehending that the respondent no. 2 is claiming the increase of area in the property of the petitioner which is gata no. 171/1 area 3 biswa 10 dhur new plot number is 766 as purchased by the brother of the petitioner in the auction purchase subsequently it is now land of the petitioner after the settlement between the petitioner and his brother in a proceeding before the civil court and the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that he is confining his claim for making correction in the records with regard to gata no. 171/2 new plot number is 766 which has wrongly been entered as 2 biswa in place of 3 biswa and 10 dhur and he has no dispute with the petitioner on the land belonging to the petitioner namely, old gata no. 171/1 and new plot no. 765 area 3 biswa 10 dhur.

¶18

In view of the categorical statement of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 as mentioned above, there remains nothing to be adjudicated in the present petition. It is clear that the petitioner is not a necessary or proper party in the proceedings or the case filed by the respondent no. 2 since admittedly the dispute does not relate to the property of petitioner.

¶19

In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶21

Order Date :- 16.5.2024 Raj

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harish Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , Sultanpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation , Sultanpur 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Swami Ram Teerth Vidhyalaya Thru. Its Manager Sri Vivek Vikram Singh Vs the Court of Addl. Commissioner Administration and 3 Others

Shiv Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ram Karan and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Pankaj Shakya Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Another

Ram Pratap @ Ram Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Gaya Prasad Vs Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kurwar Dist. Sultanpur and 2 Others