Mata Prasad Upadhyay and Others v. D.D.C. and Others

Order on Writ Petition.

¶1Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners.

¶2Service upon respondent no.5 is deemed to be sufficient since according to office report dated 18.10.2023 neither A.D. nor undelivered cover received back.

¶3In the present case by the impugned order dated 23.4.1990, Deputy Director of Consolidation has set-aside the order dated

16.6.1984 passed by Consolidation Officer on the ground that Consolidation Officer has acted beyond his jurisdiction as provided under Section 42-A of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and illegally granted chak in the garb of correction of revenue records. Restoration application thereof was dismissed.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the impugned order is erroneous since it is well settled that Section 42-A of the Act of 1953 provides correction of clerical or arithmetical error and it does not provide any jurisdiction for allotment of any new chak or change the chak and for this purpose relevant part of impugned order dated 23.4.1990 is mentioned hereinafter: "इस ्ቚककार ममै यह पकातका हहूሺ कक यह ससंदरर नकाजकायज तररीकके सके बनकायका गयका हमै जज कनरस्त हजनके यजग्य हमै। धकारका

मम चकबसंदरी अधधककाररी कज मका्ቔ धलिकपककीय ्ቔቔ኎कटि व

गणनका ससंबसंधधत ्ቔቔ኎कटियोሱ कज दቔ኎रूस्त करनके कका अधधककार हमै ककसरी कज नयका चक दकेनके व पपूरका कका पपूरका चक बदलिनके कका अधधककार नहीሻ हमै। चकबसंदरी अधधककाररी कका आदकेश अधधककार कके्ቔ कके परके हमै। यह बडका आश्चयर कका कवषय हमै कक जज धकारका 20,21,48

मम नहरी मकासंगका गयका और नका ्ቚका्቎ ककी ककी जका सककी। चकबसंदरी

अधधककाररी नके उसके धकारका

मम ्ቚदकान कर कदयका हमै। इसधलियके चकबसंदरी अधधककाररी

कनशश्चत रूप सके कनन्दका कके पका्ቔ हमै तथका अनቔ኎कचत आदकेश उन्हम पकाररत नहीሻ करनका चकाकहयके थका। स०च०अ० व चकबसंदरी कतकार ककी ररपजटिर थरी कक उनकके दकारका पमैमकाईश करनके कके वकाद ककमयकासं ्ቚककाश मम आई जब कक पमैमकाईश ककी उनकके दकारका कजई नक्शका नजररी व फकील्ड़बቔ኎क नहीሻ बनकायका गयका हमै सकाररी ककायरवकाहरी चकदकार 179 कज लिकार दकेनके कके धलियके मनगढसंत रूप सके बनकाई गई हमै। जज ककायम रहनके यजग्य नहीሻ हमै।" (Emphasis Supplied)

¶5In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition.

¶6Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.10.2023 SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 43349 of 1992 Petitioner :- Mata Prasad Upadhyay And Others Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- T.R.Shukla,Abhishek Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application. Heard. Cause shown is sufficient. Application is allowed. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. Civil Misc. Substitution Application. Heard. This substitution application is filed for substituting the legal heirs of petitioner nos.2 to 5. Substitution application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to amend the cause title of writ petition during course of the day.