SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(All) 270

HARISWARUP, K.N.SINGH
Ram Pyare – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent


Advocates:
Markandey Katju, for Petitioner; Standing Counsel, for Respondents.

Judgement

HARI SWARUP, J. :- Through this petition the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing as not maintainable the application for review of the order passed in Revision is being challenged. Admittedly there is no specific provision in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, conferring on the Deputy Director of Consolidation the power to review his judgment. Learned counsel contends that Section 41 of the Act confers such power.

2. Section 41 reads as under :

"Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall apply to all proceedings including appeal and applications under this Act." Chapter X of the Land Revenue Act gives the power to the Board of Revenue to review its judgment. There is, however, no provision therein regarding review of orders by authorities under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

3. In our opinion Sec. 41 of the Act only makes applicable the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U. P. Land Revenue Act to proceedings initiated under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, including proceedings of appeal and revision


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top