Uma Prasad vs D.D.C. /A.D.M. (J) Amethi & Ors.
2021 Latest Caselaw 4751 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 9021 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Uma Prasad
 
Respondent :- D.D.C. /A.D.M. (J) Amethi & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girija Shankar Tripathi,Devendra Kumar Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satyendra Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Satyedra Kumar Tiwari learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.4 on caveat.

The instant petition assails the judgment dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Ameth in Revision No.466. By means of the impugned order, the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been affirmed.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had entered in a compromise and the copy of the said compromise was also brought to the notice of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, the same has not been considered in the correct prospective and the allotment of chak made against the same.

The learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 has submitted that both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation having noticed the fact that the petitioner has been allotted the chak on his moolgata and in so far as in terms of the said settlement only 0.038 hectares of land which has been adjusted in Gata No.580/3, hence the same has been duly noticed and in terms of the principles contained in Section 19, there can be no error found in allotment of chak.

The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material available on record.

It indicates that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been allotted one chak on his Moolgata No.481. In so far as the remaining land is concerned, the same has been given to him in Gata No.580/3 and in view of the aforesaid merely because the petitioner had entered in a settlement and a compromise has been filed which has been dealt with by the two authorities and it has been duly recorded that even if the same is considered, the entire land cannot be adjusted in the aforesaid Gata No.580/3 and in view thereof the demand of the petitioner has not been found acceptable.

This Court upon perusal of the record does not find that there is any error committed. The reason given by the authorities is upon conscious consideration of the provision and as such cannot be termed to be arbitrary or against any provision of law. No perversity has been pointed out in the aforesaid finding.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.3.2021

ank