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

1998 Supreme(All) 1400

B.DIKSHIT
SOM DATT – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SAHARANPUR – Respondent


B. DIKSHIT, J.

A short question which arise for consideration in this writ * petition is as to whether a judgment passed on the concession of parties in an appeal in respect of allotment of chaks could be assailed by one of the party to concession in revision filed under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of "holdings Act on the ground that there was no written com promise between the parties and, there fore, the adjustment made in appeal could not be upheld for want of written com promise. According to statement of fact incorporated in order, the petitioner and contesting opposite parties agreed and the appellate authority adjusted chalks ac cordingly by recording concession made by parties in its judgment passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, which the petitioner has challenged in revision filed under Section 48 of U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act which has given rise to this writ petition. The revision was op posed by contesting opposite party on the round that neither any consent was given y contesting opposite party before Assis tant Settlement Officer Consolidation nor any written compromise is available on the file of Assistant Settlement Officer Con solid









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