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

2005 Supreme(All) 1230

KRISHNA MURARI
Ram Vriksha, Rajbali – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director of Consolidation, Ram Narain – Respondent


Advocates:
R.S.MISHRA, SWARAJ PRAKASH,

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 26. 8. 1980 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the case has been remanded back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation.

( 2 ) THE dispute arises out of proceeding under Section 9a (2) of the U. P Consolidation of holdings Act (for short the Act) and relates to plot no. 102/65 and Khata no. 175. The undisputed facts are that one Raj Bali, father of the petitioner was recorded as sirdar of the land in dispute He died in 1956 when the petitioner was minor, aged about 2 years. Vide order dated 11. 4. 1956 passed by Naib Tehsildar, the name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue record in place of his deceased father. Shortly, alter the death of the petitioners father his mother also died. The petitioner was under care and supervision of his grand mother. On account of his disability, being a minor, the petitioner was not able to cultivate the land himself as such it was let out to one Sawaroo, the father of respondent no. 4 on " BATAI" (crop sharing basis ). Later on the grand- mother of the petitioner executed a sale deed of the disp





















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