Dismissed

Jagdish Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024WRIB/2520/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a consolidated chak allotment, claiming the substituted land was of bad quality and a sector road was illegally proposed. The court found the grievance substantially redressed by the Settlement Officer who allocated different plots and held no illegality in the orders of the Consolidation authorities, dismissing the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jagdish Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121818

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2520 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh

¶5

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Nand Yadav,Satya Prakash Singh

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No. 1 to 3 and perused the record.

¶9

Instant writ petition has arisen from the chak allotment proceeding. In provisional consolidation scheme, the petitioner has been proposed chak No. 83. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 22.10.2022, has slightly modified the chak of the petitioner whereby plot No. 9 min measuring area 0.064 hectare has been taken out from his chak and he has been allotted chak over plot No. 96 min measuring area 0.072 hectare. Having been aggrieved with the allotment of the chak over plot No. 96, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on the ground that plot No. 96 is a bad quality of land and sector road has illegally been proposed over his plot No. 9. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has modified the chak of the petitioner whereby he has been proposed chak over plot No. 335 min measuring area 0.096 hectare in place of plot No. 96 measuring area 0.072 hectare. On revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which is under challenge before this Court.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perusal of record, it is manifested that the Consolidation Officer has taken out plot No. 9 measuring area 0.064 hectare from the chak of the petitioner (Chak No. 83) and proposed sector road over there. In lieu thereof, he has been proposed plot No. 96. Grievance of the petitioner has properly been redressed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 13.4.2023, whereby order passed by the Consolidation

¶11

Officer has been modified. Consequently, he has been proposed chak over plot No. 335 min measuring area 0.096 hectare.

¶12

In this view of the matter, chak of the petitioner has been exchanged with the Bachat land which is evident from amendment chart appended to the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. While dismissing the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given categorical finding that the petitioner has been proposed first chak over his original holding i.e. plot No. 9 min etc., second chak etc. has been proposed over his original holding being plot No. 96 and third chak has been proposed over his original holding No. 335 etc. Thus, all the three chaks are proposed over the original holdings of the petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order after conducting the spot inspection and perusal of record. Finding of fact returned by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation has not been rebutted by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner qua plot No. 96 has substantially been redressed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. So far as carvation of sector road over plot No. 9 is concerned, same cannot be challenged by advancing sweeping statements unless a case of violation of any legal provision is made out.

¶13

In this conspectus, as above, this Court do not find any justifiable ground to entertain in the instant writ petition and interfere in the order impugned passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. Grievance as shown by the petitioner has substantially been redressed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 13.4.2023. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation so as to warrant the indulgence of this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how the petitioner is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the order under challenge before this Court.

¶14

Resultantly, instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to the costs.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 vinay

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagdish Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jagdish Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar vs State of Up and 6 Others

Lajjavati Devi vs State of Up and 2 Others

Meena Devi vs Deputy Director of Consolidation District Moradabad and 7 Others

Shiv Sampat Shukla vs State of Up and 4 Others

Bilkish @ Balkish vs State of Up and 7 Others

Subhash Chand vs State of Up and 4 Others