# Ram Niwas v. D.D.C. Mahamaya Nagar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 1286
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-15
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 6567 of 2006
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-niwas-v-d-d-c-mahamaya-nagar-anr-45968
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Re-opening of
proceedings of chak allotment - It was not
open for a subsequent transferee to reopen proceedings of chak allotment which
had
attained
finality
against
his
predecessor in interest, the revision itself
was not maintainable and for the same reason
the impugned revisional order, which allows the
revision
cannot
be
sustained
and
must
necessarily be set aside. (Para 6)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Present petition assails the order dated
27.12.2005, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation.

## Text

1286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellants-Shakir Ali, Nabi Sher and Nabi
Hasan are acquitted. They are on bail. Their
bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.

29. Keeping in view the provision of
Section 437-A of the Code, appellantsShakir Ali, Nabi Sher and Nabi Hasan are
hereby directed forthwith to furnish a
personal bond of a sum of Rs.20,000/-
each and two reliable sureties each of the
like amount before the trial Court, which
shall be effective for a period of six
months, along with an undertaking that in
the event of filing of Special Leave
Petition against this judgment or for grant
of leave, they, on receipt of notice
thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

30. A copy of this judgment along
with lower court record be sent to trial
Court by FAX for immediate compliance.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1286
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ-B No. 6567 of 2006

Ram Niwas ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. Mahamaya Nagar & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Chandra Yadav, Sri Ram Snehi
Yadav, Rekha Singh, Sri Vijendra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Aditya Narayan, Sri Anil Kumar
Aditya, Sri R.C. Tiwari
A. Civil Law - - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Re-opening of
proceedings of chak allotment - It was not
open for a subsequent transferee to reopen proceedings of chak allotment which
had
attained
finality
against
his
predecessor in interest, the revision itself
was not maintainable and for the same reason
the impugned revisional order, which allows the
revision
cannot
be
sustained
and
must
necessarily be set aside. (Para 6)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Present petition assails the order dated
27.12.2005, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner arises out of the
proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks
a writ of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation on a revision filed
by the respondents.

3. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the revision filed by
the
contesting
respondents
was
not
maintainable. It has been submitted that the
order of the Settlement Consolidation
Officer challenged before the revisional
court was dated 05.09.2004. The revision
itself has been filed after the contesting
respondents obtained a sale deed of the
entire chak of Shri Suresh Chandra on
08.11.2005. It is also contended that the
order dated 05.09.2004 had attained finality
against Suresh Chandra and, therefore, the
contesting
respondents,
who
was
a
transferee from Suresh Chandra, after the
chak allotment in favour of Suresh Chand
1 All. Ram Niwas Vs. D.D.C. Mahamaya Nagar & Anr.
1287
attained
finality,
was
clearly
not
maintainable.

4. The contesting respondent had
purchased the entire chak of Suresh Chandra
with open eyes and after the allotment of
chaks in his favour has become final and,
therefore, the transferee did not get any right
to challenge the allotment made in favour of
Suresh Chandra.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents
has tried to support the impugned order but
has not been able to show as to how his
revision was maintainable, he being a
subsequent transferee after the allotment
made in favour of his predecessor in interest
had attained finality.

6. In view of the above foregoing
discussions and since in my considered
opinion, it was not open for a subsequent
transferee to re-open proceedings of chak
allotment which had attained finality against
his predecessor in interest, the revision itself
was not maintainable and for the same
reason the impugned revisional order, which
allows the revision cannot be sustained and
must necessarily be set aside.

7. Accordingly, I allow this writ
petition and set aside the order dated
20.07.2005 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation.

8. No costs.
----------