Chet Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent NO. 4. Hon(cid:146)ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated
30.06.2003, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1), whereby amendment application filed by the petitioner to amend the objection, filed before the Consolidation Officer, under Section 9A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, has been rejected. The amendment was sought on the ground that Meghraj, is not having any share in the land in dispute, while in the objection dated 31.12.1996, by mistake 1/4th share of Meghraj was written, who has become a sanyasi and his rights cannot be said to be extinguished. Learned Consolidation Officer, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the amendment application on the ground that by way of amendment, objector wants to withdraw his admission and if such amendment is allowed, the nature of the case would change. Further aggrieved by said order, revision was preferred before Deputy Director Consolidation, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2003. I have perused the objection, filed by the petitioner. There is specific averment in each and every para regarding 1/4th share of Meghraj in the land in dispute, therefore, it cannot be said that by mistake Meghraj(cid:146)s share has been mentioned as 1/4th and even if a person has become a sanyasi, the right in the land cannot be said to be ceased. 2 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no error impugned orders, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as by Consolidation Officer. The impugned orders, do not suffer from any perversity. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible. Interim order dated
31.12.2003, passed by this Court, is hereby vacated. Urgency application No. 3280 of 2013, also stands disposed of.
23.08.2013 Sweta (B.S. Verma, J.) 3
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 — s. 9A.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.