Writ petition challenging land consolidation proceedings was dismissed. Court found petitioner retained substantial land holding, negating claim of total displacement. No jurisdictional interference issued.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:131759
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1729 of 2024
Petitioner :- Mihi Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 15 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Jeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Kant Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
for the petitioner that petitioner has totally been displaced from plot no.293. It is evident from CH-Form-23 (Chak-holder No.592), as discussed above, that in the provisional consolidation scheme, at the state of Assistant Consolidation Officer, petitioner has been proposed measuring area 0.253 hectare over plot no.293, however, after the order of Consolidation Officer, his area has been increased inasmuch as he has been accorded additional area of 0.083 hectare, thus, total area comes about 0.336 hectare at plot no.293. Out of area 0.336 hectare, Settlement Officer of Consolidation has taken out only the area 0.064 hectare. Meaning thereby, remaining area 0.272 hectare still in the possession of the petitioner over plot no.293 which is part of his chak no.592. It is apposite to mention that over plot no.293 measuring area 0.595 hectare, he possessed only one third (1/3) share and after Culmination of proceeding at the stage of D.D.C., substantial portion of plot no.293 i.e. measuring area 0.272 hectare is still in the possession of the petitioner, therefore, no substantial injury/prejudice encompassed to him. No other point has been raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :- RAMAKANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner was totally displaced from Plot No. 293 entitling him to writ intervention.
Whether Deputy Director of Consolidation's order suffered illegality, perversity or ambiguity warranting interference under Article 226.
Mihi Lal
State Of U.P.
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
