Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH
Nisamani Dandasena – Appellant
Versus
Purusottam Dandasena (Since Dead) through his LRs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim and defendants' contention over property. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. determination of rightful title based on consolidation and partition. (Para 5 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of jurisdictional authority and record evidence. (Para 6 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal arguments regarding jurisdiction and consolidation record. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final judgment to allow the appeal. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
1. These Appellant, in filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.05.1998 and 25.06.1998 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur in Title Appeal No.05 of 1994.
2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.
It is further stated that the Consolidation Authority while recording the suit land in the name of the Plaintiff have made certain notes as to the possession of the suit land in the said consolidation record of right which is without any jurisdiction and wholly erroneous. The Defendants by taking advantage of such note of posses
Civil Courts may not interfere with consolidation records unless significant arbitrariness is demonstrated; judicial procedures must be adhered to diligently.
(1) Revenue entries are not documents of title and do not ordinarily confer or extinguish title in land but, nonetheless, where revenue authorities or consolidation authorities are competent to deter....
Consolidation authorities' records establish title and possession, superseding claims of adverse possession, which indirectly acknowledge the opposing party's title, rendering simultaneous inconsiste....
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over ownership disputes despite statutory provisions barring such jurisdiction in consolidation schemes unless expressly excluded.
The suit was held to be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act as the disputed land was recorded as Navin Parti during consolidation operation and the plaintiff did not take any steps to correct th....
The court affirmed that disputes regarding consolidation schemes must be resolved through appellate remedies, and title disputes among estate holders are to be adjudicated by civil courts, not under ....
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
