Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SATISH CHANDRA, T.S. MISRA, JJ.
Mst. Kailashi - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ No. 2722 of 1971.
Decided On : 01-11-1971
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra, J. - The Consolidation Officer condoned the delay in filing an objection under section 9, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The other side feeling aggrieved filed a revision. The Dy. Director went into the merits and held that there was no sufficient explanation for the delay. On this ground he allowed the revision and set aside the order condoning the delay. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the Dy. Director had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the application for the condonation of delay. S. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act confers powers upon the Dy. Director to reach on facts and law every kind of order passed by a subordinate consolidation authority. The order condoning the delay was subject to the revisional powers under section 48 of the Act. Learned counsel, however, relied upon the decision of the Board of Revenue in Mangali v. Putti Lal (1971 AWR (Rev.) 53) to the effect that where the Court of original jurisdiction condones the delay, an appellate Court has no power to go into the merits of such condonation. It can go into the merits of the case because an appeal would lie only against an order passed by the trial Court on the merits of the case. The decision does not discuss the statutory provisions in regard to the appellate or revisional powers under the Z.A. Act. We are not satisfied that this decision lays down the law correctly; but it is unnecessary to discuss the matter further because it does not apply to the proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act under which, as mentioned above, the revisional powers are very wide and they can reach every order passed by a subordinate consolidation authority.
2. The petition is rejected.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
