MATABADAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Village-Mau, Pargana and Tahsil-Baberu, District-Banda was notified under Sec. 4 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") vide notification dtd. 16/3/1985. In Paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition, the particulars of the case number, date of judgment and particulars of the plot numbers are mentioned by which the orders were passed by the consolidation authorities in respect to the plot in question in favour of the petitioner. The date of the orders are 30/6/1990, 26/7/1989, 5/5/1988 and 22/9/1987. Village in question was notified under Sec. 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act on 17/9/2003. Petitioner has approached the authorities for recording of his name in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 6(2) of U.P.C.H. Act by way of application but no steps has been taken by the authorities. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs :

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 15/4/2025 directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction in the mater.