words per minute
8
PRAMOD_MAURYA
00:00
Speed
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL.SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28:05:2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YOGENDRA KUMAR
SANGAL, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.-388 of 2010
Shiv Balak …Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation Unnao
Camp, Lucknow. …Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner
Surya Mani Pandey
D.C. Dubey
Counsel for the Respondent
C.S.C.
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act- 1952-
Section 48-Power of Revisional courtConcurrent finding of facts recorded by
the consolidation authorities-set-a-sideand order of remand without disclosing
any illegality-held-D.D.C. being the court
of fact and law having unfettered
jurisdiction-complete control should test
the correctness of order before remandconsiderable time consumed No useful
purpose will be solved to remand the
matter before consolidation officerdirection issued to Deputy Director of
Consolidation itself to decide the revision
within 3 months positively awaiting
adjournment if necessary subject to
deposit of cost of Rs.1000 with
undertaking to participate in next date.
Held: Para 8 & 9
I have also gone through the law of apex
Court cited on behalf of the petitioners
referred above, which provides that as
entire matter was before the D.D.C. and
his jurisdiction was unfettered and he
was in complete control and position to
test the correctness of the order made by
the courts below so he should have
himself gone through the record and
decide the dispute at his level. No where
It was pointed out specifically which
point of evidence was not considered by
the courts below. On what point and
evidence appreciation of courts below
was not found correct by him. Which
party was intending to adduce further
evidence in the matter and was stopped
by the courts below to adduce that
evidence, it is also not clear from the
impugned order. On what points wrong
conclusion has been drawn by the courts
below, it is also not clear from the
impugned order.
Case law discussed:
1999 Rajshwa Law Times 184 Ramveer Vs.
D.D.C., 1996 (87) RD 1992 Pritam Singh Vs.
Assistant D.D.C, 2009 (27) LCD 712 Ram
Awadh Vs. Ramdas.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Y.K. Sangal, J.)
1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioners with the prayer to issue
a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the orders dated
24.04.2010 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation (D.D.C) contained in
Annexure No. 1. He further prayed to
issue a writ of mandamus commanding
the opposite parties to maintain status-quo
in regard to the possession over the
disputed land as per order dated
11.03.2005 passed by the S.O.C.
(Settlement Officer Consolidation) and
07.08.1987 passed by the C.O.
(Consolidation Officer).
2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the
record.
3. As per petition's case land of
Khata No. 103 situated in village
Sikandarpur Amaulia, Paragana Lalganj,
district Lucknow was recorded in the name of one Gurudin. After his death
name of his two heirs Ishwari and Baiju
were recorded. Both were having equal
share in the land of this Kahata. Ishwari
died leaving behind heir Ghasite his son.
As he was minor, Baiju get recorded his
name as sole tenure holder taking benefit
of minority of Ghasite. Baiju was having
three sons, Matroo, Dulare and Lalita.
After the death of Baiju, all the three sons
were recorded as tenure holder. Further
details are given, how many sons all these
three have and their names were recorded
on the land of Khata No