Mohan Singh Vs. D.D.C. and ors.

Mohan Singh vs D.D.C. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Apr 02, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/473081

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/473081
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.N. Srivastava, J.
Decided On: Apr 02, 2003
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 14088 of 2003
Subject: Property
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - It is envisaged in the proviso itself that the permission could be granted in some exceptional case and there is no indicia on the record that the petitioner was allotted the land beyond the extent of 25% in consideration of some special circumstances.

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 19(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohan Singh

Advocate V.S. Chaudhary, Adv.

Respondent

D.D.C. and ors.

Advocate S. Goswami and ;V.K. Singh, Advs. and ;S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 19(1)
Reported In: 2003(3)AWC2413

Excerpt

- - it is envisaged in the proviso itself that the permission could be granted in some exceptional case and there is no indicia on the record that the petitioner was allotted the land beyond the extent of 25% in consideration of some special circumstances......to the petitioner not only his original holdings but some additional land other than his original holding to the extent of 0.257 hectares which transgressed the bounds of 25% fixed in the proviso aforestated. however, the deputy director consolidation after reckoning with every and every aspect rectified the error and the petitioner was re-situated in his original holding in letter and spirit of the provisions embodied in the proviso aforestated without prejudicing his interest in any manner. the proviso to section 19 (1) (b) is abstracted below :'............provided that, except with the permission of the dy. director of consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty five per cent of the latter.'in my considered view, there is no error permeating the order impugned here and the deputy director of consolidation rightly passed the order with due regard being had to the mandate contained in the proviso aforestated and thus, it suffers from no perversity, illegality or impropriety apparent on the face of the order. it does not appear from the record that the petitioner was allotted land beyond the extent of 25% with the approbation of the dy. director of consolidation. it is envisaged in the proviso itself that the permission could be granted in some exceptional case and there is no indicia on the record that the petitioner was allotted the land beyond the extent of 25% in consideration of some special circumstances. in the circumstances, no case for interference is made out and the petition renders itself liable to be dismissed in limine.3. the petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.N. Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri V.S. Chaudhary for the petitioner and Sri S. Goswami Standing Counsel representing the opposite parties. I have also perused the record and considered the submissions made across the bar.

2. It would appear from the perusal of the record that the petitioner's holding consisted in Gata No. 1839/1 admeasuring 0.105 hectares. However, Assistant Consolidation Officer ostensibly in ignorance of the provisions embodied in proviso to Section 19 (1) (b) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allotted to the petitioner not only his original holdings but some additional land other than his original holding to the extent of 0.257 hectares which transgressed the bounds of 25% fixed in the proviso aforestated. However, the Deputy Director Consolidation after reckoning with every and every aspect rectified the error and the petitioner was re-situated in his original holding in letter and spirit of the provisions embodied in the proviso aforestated without prejudicing his interest in any manner. The proviso to Section 19 (1) (b) is abstracted below :

'............Provided that, except with the permission of the Dy. Director of Consolidation, the area of the holding or holdings allotted to a tenure-holder shall not differ from the area of his original holding or holdings by more than twenty five per cent of the latter.'

In my considered view, there is no error permeating the order impugned here and the Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly passed the order with due regard being had to the mandate contained in the proviso aforestated and thus, it suffers from no perversity, illegality or impropriety apparent on the face of the order. It does not appear from the record that the petitioner was allotted land beyond the extent of 25% with the approbation of the Dy. Director of Consolidation. It is envisaged in the proviso itself that the permission could be granted in some exceptional case and there is no indicia on the record that the petitioner was allotted the land beyond the extent of 25% in consideration of some special circumstances. In the circumstances, no case for interference is made out and the petition renders itself liable to be dismissed in limine.

3. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Mohan Singh vs D.D.C. and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge S.N. Srivastava, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections ...

Property