Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2273/2008 of SUSHILA DEVI and OTHERS Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION HARIDWAR and ANR on 31 December 2008
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2008 (M/S) 1. Sushila Devi W/o Sri Ramesh Chand 2. Vikram Singh S/o Sri Tungal SIngh 3. Jabbar S/o Sri Mustakeem 4. Naseem S/o Sri Asgar 5. Ramesh Chand S/o Sri Asha Ram All R/o Village Toda Kaliyanpur Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2273 of 2008 (M/S)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Sushila Devi W/o Sri Ramesh Chand
2. Vikram Singh S/o Sri Tungal SIngh
3. Jabbar S/o Sri Mustakeem
4. Naseem S/o Sri Asgar
5. Ramesh Chand S/o Sri Asha Ram
All R/o Village Toda Kaliyanpur
Pargana & Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar.
...………… Petitioners
Versus
1. Dy. Director of Consolidation
Haridwar, District Haridwar.
2. Settlement Officer of Consolidation Haridwar, Camp at Roorkee, District Haridwar.Haridwar, Camp at Roorkee, District Haridwar.
...………….
Respondent
Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents.
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel present for the respondents.
2) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective chaks, without passing any order for measurement and delivery of possession.
4) Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are residents of Village Toda Kaliyanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. After consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, on 30[th]October 2008, proceedings under Section 24 of said Act were finalized. Petitioners’ case is that on the complaint of certain villagers the respondents are getting done ‘chak parivartan’ by measuring the plots afresh and thereby the crop sown by the petitioners is getting destroyed. Hence, the writ petition.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to Para 339 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual and argued that such measurements or ‘chak parivartan’ can be made between 15[th] may and 30[th] June when there is no crop standing on the fields. In this connection, it is contended that by making ‘chak parivartan’ the respondents are causing destruction to the standing crops of the petitioners.
6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this writ petition is summarily disposed of with the direction that the petitioners may make a representation to respondent No. 1 for redressal of their grievances, within a period of one week and said authority shall dispose of the same within a period of three weeks thereafter, relating to the request of the petitioners to defer the ‘chak parivartan’ in view of the standing crops. (Interim Relief Application No. 9052 of 2008 also stands disposed of).
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Dt.: December 31, 2008H.Negi