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

1989 Supreme(All) 171

K.P.SINGH
Ram Niwaz – Appellant
Versus
Consolidation Officer Antim Abhilekh Basti – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
S.D. Pathak

JUDGMENT

K.P. Singh

1. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of prohibition directing the respondents nos. 1 to 3 not to start consolidation operation or adjudicate any case or title about any of the plots or chak situate in village Amauli or to make any correction in consolidation records under section 42 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

2. Both the parties agree that the village in question was under consolidation operation and denotification under section 52 of the UP CH Act has taken place on 3-8-1985. Thereafter the petitioners were served with notices contained in Annexures III and V attached with the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court for the relief mentioned above."

Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to restart the consolidation operation or adjudicate upon any title regarding the plots and chaks situate in village Amauli or make any correction in consolidation records under section 42-A of the Act. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the allegations made in paragraphs 4 to 8 o
















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