Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashok Bhushan, J.
UMESH CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 16667 Of 2003
Decided On : 05/22/2003
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Objection under Section 9a(2) - 1953 Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 9a(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - The court discussed the implications of the objection filed under Section 9a(2) and the rights of the parties involved. It highlighted the importance of considering all relevant objections and the need for independent adjudication of disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. The case involved objections under Section 9a(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, regarding co-tenancy rights and sale deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the objections and rights of the parties must be considered independently, emphasizing the need for fair adjudication and the right to raise all pleas for establishing rights.
Issues: The issues revolved around the objections filed under Section 9a(2), the recall of previous orders, and the rights of the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of independent adjudication of disputes and the right of parties to raise all permissible pleas for establishing their rights.
Final Decision: The court refused the prayer for quashing the orders but directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the pending objection expeditiously, considering the observations made.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and as prayed by counsel for both the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
( 2 ) BY means of the this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 1. 4. 2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur and the order dated 11. 12. 1995 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Ramal Patti, Mirzapur.
( 3 ) BRIEF facts of this case are : "an objection under Section 9a (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") was filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, petitioner Nos. 6 to 9 and petitioner Nos. 11 and 12 claiming that they are co-tenure holders with regard to land in dispute. In the objection Roop Chandra Varma, Ramesh Chandra Varma, Sharad Chandra Varma and Prakash Chandra Varma were impleaded as defendants and it was claimed that they had only 1/3rd share. A compromise was filed by both the parties and the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the aforesaid compromise passed an order on 15. 5. 1987. By order dated 15. 5. 1987 the names of the parties as co-tenure holders were recorded in Khata No. 946 as per compromise. The compromise was made part of the order. The aforesaid objection was filed in the year 1986 before the Consolidation Officer and while passing the order the Consolidation Officer condoned the delay in filing the objection. Another objection under Section 9a (2) of the said Act was filed by the New Kashmir Oriental Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. against Roop Chandra Varma and lakshmi Chandra claiming recording of their names on the basis of sale deed from the recorded tenure-holder. In the basic year records the names of Roop Chandra Varma and Lakshmi chandra were recorded over the land in dispute. On the objection filed by the New Kashmir oriental Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. case under Section 9a (2) of the said Act was registered in the Court of the Consolidation Officer, Ram Bagh, Mirzapur, being Case No. 3975 of 1981. The case of objectors in case No. 3975 of 1981 was that the recorded tenure holders Lakshmi chandra and Roop Chandra Varma executed two registered sale deeds dated 9. 6. 1974 and 31. 3. 1975 transferring the land in dispute in favour of New Kashmir Oriental Transport company Pvt, Ltd. During the pendency of the objections filed by New Kashmir Oriental transport Company Pvt. Ltd. , an objection before the Consolidation Officer, Ramai Patti, mirzapur, was filed by the petitioners as mentioned above claiming co-tenancy right in Khata no. 146 which was decided on compromise on 15. 5. 1987. After the order of 15. 5. 1987 the petitioners also filed an application for impleadment in Case No. 3975 of 1981 which application was also allowed on 21. 3. 1990. Petitioners claimed for impleadment in the aforesaid case on the basis of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 15. 5. 1987. An application was filed by the respondent No. 3 Smt. Raj Kumari Ghai, Satish Chandra Ghal and Anil Ghai in the year 1995 in Case No. 1156 of 1987 praying for recall of the order dated 15. 5. 1987. It was claimed by the respondents in the application that Lakshmi Chandra and Roop Chandra were owners of the land in dispute who sold the said land by two registered sale deeds dated 9. 6. 1974 and 31. 3. 1975 in favour of New Kashmir Oriental Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. It claimed that the said New kashmir Oriental Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. transferred the land in dispute in favour of the respondents by registered sale deed dated 9. 1. 1989. It was also stated that the Case No. 3975 of 1981 was registered under Section 9 of the said Act before the Consolidation Officer, Ram Bagh was going on during which the petitioners filed collusive objection which was decided in terms of compromise giving co
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
