Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2011
  6. /
  7. January

Kalloo vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|23 March, 2011

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the supplementary affidavit filed today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings before the Consolidation Officer were ex-parte and therefore the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have erred in not allowing the restoration application of the petitioner and have proceeded on merits.
Learned counsel with the aid of the supplementary affidavit submits that there was a document available on record which indicates that it was Parsadwa who was entered as a hereditary tenant in Ziman - 8 and therefore it cannot be presumed that the property had been acquired by the ancestors. Learned counsel therefore submits that the Consolidation Officer committed a manifest error by recording the names of the respondents 4 and 5.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the admitted pedigree is as follows:
It is therefore clear that Parsadwa was the grandson of Balla. The property has been entered in Ziman - 8 which is obviously of hereditary tenancy. In such a situation the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that it was not an ancestral acquisition cannot be accepted. Even otherwise the Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence contrary to the revenue records that were available to establish his exclusive possession after the death of Parsadwa. Even before this Court the document which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit, and which was not there before the authorities below, supports the cause of the respondents and the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer on merits could not have been upturned.
In the opinion of the Court the petitioner has failed to adduce any material that may warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take a view adverse to that which has been taken by the authorities below.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Dt. 23.3.2011 Sahu
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kalloo vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation, ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
23 March, 2011
Judges
  • Amreshwar Pratap Sahi