ANAND NARAIN Vs. D.D.C.
LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-45
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 19,2013

ANAND NARAIN Appellant
VERSUS
D.D.C. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOHD. ALI AND OTHERS V. BALSAL KUMARI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
DIBHAG SINGH VS. DDC AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARI VS. DDC AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SHAH BABULAL KHIMJI VS. JAYABEN D KANIA [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. JAGDISH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BIJAI NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JAITOON VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [REFERRED TO]
HEMA DIBYA VS. AMARENDRA KISHORE DAS [REFERRED TO]
H H BRIJ INDAR SINGH VS. LALA KANSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN RAUTARA VS. MAHARAJA KRISHNA CHANDRA GAJPATI NARAYAN DEO [REFERRED TO]
RANVIR SINGH VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MEERUT AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
KHEDAN VS. VISHWANATH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MOHD. IMRAN VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-151] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Tewari, counsel for the respondents.
(2.)The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Consolidation Officer (respondent-2) dated 10.04.2013 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for issue of writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Consolidation Officer (respondent-2) from proceeding with Case No. 2212 Ramdev and others Vs. Surendra Nath Tripathi, pending before him.
(3.)The dispute relates to the land recorded in khata 39 (consisting plots 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1856, 1847, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1865, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1764 and 1794) of village Madho Nagar, tappa Banki, pargana Haveli, district Gorakhpur (now Mahrajganj). In basic consolidation year, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Surendra Nath Tripathi (respondent-3). Ramdev son of Chhedi and Smt. Shivpatti Devi wife of Ram Kishun (now represented by the petitioners) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 2212) under Section 9-A of the Act, claiming their sirdari rights over the land in dispute, on basis their possession for more than statutory period of limitation. It is alleged that a written compromise dated 04.02.1992 signed by all the parties was filed before the Consolidation Officer, who on the basis of the compromise, by order dated 04.02.1992, allowed the objection, giving 1/2 share to the petitioners in disputed land.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.