B.DAYAL, K.B.ASTHANA, M.H.BEG
Sita – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
M. H. BEG, J. :- This reference to a Full Bench arises out of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and the Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh, rejecting the petitioners' objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as it stood before its amendment in 1958. The petitioners' objection before the Consolidation authorities was that their names were wrongly omitted from the statement of proposals published under Section 19 of the Act. These statements in C. H. Form 23, prescribed by Rule 46, must contain a number of particulars laid down in Section 19 of the Act. Among the details to be entered in C. H. Form 23, are the name and parentage of each tenure-holder and the class of tenure of each plot in the village which is undergoing consolidation proceedings. The petitioners claimed to be Sirdars of plots nos. 1011 and 1191 in their village. Their objection was rejected by the Consolidation authorities, in proceedings under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, on the ground that th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.