Dismissed

Fakhre Alam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda Now Balrampur and Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024WRIB/1005/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench disposed of a writ petition challenging a 1987 order regarding land consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The court dismissed the petition, holding that it was barred by laches due to a delay of over three decades and noting the absence of material substantiating the petitioner's claims of ancestral ownership and adverse possession.

What the court decided

AI extract

Fakhre Alam vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda Now… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71255

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1005 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Fakhre Alam Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Gonda Now Balrampur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Beer Singh Bot Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the Office of Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:-

¶8

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the dated 03.02.1987 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation Gonda i.e. opposite party No.1 in reference No.98 U/S 48(3) of U.P.C.H. Act "Nizamuddin Vs. Munauwar" which is contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

¶9

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to not disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question."

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed property in question was ancestral property recorded in the revenue record. The petitioner has been in adverse possession of the same. During the proceedings of consolidation operations, the name of the petitioner which ought to have been recorded was not done so. It is thereafter, that once the possession of the petitioner was disturbed that the petitioner came to know of the order dated 03.02.1987, which was passed in reference proceedings under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It is thus urged that though there is much delay in filing the petition, but since the petitioner is being unlawfully dispossessed, it is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the said petition has been filed.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of material available on record, there is no material to bring on record as to how the petitioner claims the property to be his ancestral or how the petitioner has claimed his right on the basis of the adverse possession. There is also no material to justify that in the reference proceedings, impugned orders were passed, which were there and recorded in the consolidation

¶12

record yet the same has never been challenged by the petitioner despite passing of more than three decades. The petitioner nowhere indicates any reasonable ground upon which the petition can be entertained.

¶13

The petition is hugely barred by laches and no specific right has been pleaded and substantiated, which may persuade this Court to entertain this petition, which is apparently devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Ashutosh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Fakhre Alam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda Now Balrampur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Fakhre Alam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Gonda Now Balrampur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nitin Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sabira Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Rameshvar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt. , Lucknow and Others

Shree Ganga Ram Das Baba Institute of Pharmacy, Thru. President, Rajendra Singh Yadav and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Technical Education, Lko. and Others

Smt. Bhagmata Vs Nayab Tahsildar Mawai Tahsil Rudauli Dist. Ayodhya and Another

Smt. Ganga Devi Vs Nayab Tahsildar Mawai Tahsil Rudaulu Dist. Ayodhya and Another