Dismissed¶7

Surendra Pal Singh v. Jai Devi

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WRIB/14663/1981

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surendra Pal Singh v. Jai Devi; WRIT - B No. 14663 of 1981; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; single judge Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.; decision dated March 18, 2026. Keywords: chak; consolidation proceedings; Deputy Director of Consolidation; revision; nigrani; Udaan Chak; chak readjustment; area discrepancy (original chak 6-21 vs allotted chak 4-85); delay of more than 45 years; writ petition dismissed; no interim order passed in 1981.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is justified because the revisionist (respondent no.1) had an original chak of 6-21 while the petitioner was allotted a chak of 4-85 as Udaan Chak; the order cured the irregularity and readjusted the chak. ¶6

Surendra Pal Singh Vs Jai Devi — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - B No. - 14663 of 1981

¶3

Surendra Pal Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Jai Devi		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: D.P.Singh, Prabhat Niranjan	Kumar, Siddharth
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: P.K.Bisaria, R.K. Karan Saxena	Srivastava, Udai

¶6

Court No. - 32

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶8

1.Heard Sri Mangal Rai holding brief of Sri Siddharth Niranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

This is a case arising out of chak during consolidation proceedings.

¶10

This writ petition was filed in the year 1981 and no interim order was passed.

¶11

Court finds that impugned order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on basis of revision which has been filed by revisionist Jai Devi (respondent no.1 herein). Relevant part of impugned order is mentioned hereinafter:

¶12

"मैने उभय पक्ष को सुना तथा ग्राम के अिभलेखों का अवलोकन िकया। िजससे यह िविदत हुआ िक िनगरानीकतार् की मांग सही है उसका दूसरा चक जो गाटा संख्या 631 आिद पर बना है िबना मूल जोत के है और वहां उसकी चक िदया जाना न्याय संगत नहीं है। िनगरानी कतार् की मूल जोत 6-21 है जब िक उसे चक 4-85 का िदया गया है इस प्रकार रकवे का यह अन्तर अिनयिमत है। वह एक छोटा कास्तकार है। दुरूस्त करना आवश्यक है। िनगरानी कतार् ने चकदार 392 को पक्ष बनाया है िजसको एक चक िदया गया है इसकी मूल जोत 2-08 रू० थी जब िक चक 5-02 ए 0 का िदया गया है। रकवे में इतना अिधक अन्तर िनयिमत नहीं है।

¶13

अतः िनगरानीकतार् की िनगरानी स्वीकार की जाती है चकदार 97 से उसका चक जो गाटा सं० 631, 633 पर बना है, 9-16 आने की मािलयत खािरज

¶14

WRIB No. 14663 of 1981

¶15

¶16

करके चकदार 392 को दी जाती है तथा चकदार 392 से उसके एक से इतनी मािलयत उसके चक जो गाटा संख्या 705,6,8 आिद पर बना है खािरज करके चकदार 97 को प्रिदष्ट की जाती है तदनुसार संशोधन तािलका बनाई गई है जो इस आदेश का अंग होगी।"

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not heard.

¶18

I have considered the above submissions and find that impugned order is justified since the revisionist (respondent no.1) has original chak at 6- 21 and petitioner was allotted chak at 4-85 as Udaan Chak, therefore, said order was cured and chak was readjusted, therefore, impugned order does not invite any interference after more than 45 years.

¶19

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

¶21

March 18, 2026 SB

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Pal Singh v. Jai Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Pal Singh v. Jai Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shalini Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Heeraman vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Naseem Ahmed vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bipin Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others