SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Basdev – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The fact which is not in dispute is that nature of land in dispute, in the present case, was not on record during first consolidation proceedings. However, during second consolidation proceedings, the land in dispute was earmarked for charagah/pasture land (hereinafter referred to as ‘pasture land’). The second consolidation proceedings got over and a notification under Section 52(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”) was issued on 04.12.1993. Later on, land in dispute was valued and allotted to petitioners on valuation and present status of land allotted to petitioners are on record i.e. some parts of land are still vacant and on some parts of land constructions of different nature are raised. Details of allotment of land in dispute to petitioners such as respective allotment orders specifying respective allotted areas, dates of such allotmentare not on record.
2. Further, it is also not disputed that after 24 years of a notification being issued under Section 52 of the Act, 1953, the private contesting respondent (Raj Narayan) has submitted an application dated 17.07.2017, before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, mak
Gafoora vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut
Ram Bahadur vs. D.D.C. and others
Iqbal Ahamad and others vs. D.D.C. and others
Palakdhari vs. Gaon Sabha Devara
Sheo Nand and others vs. D.D.C., Allahabad and others
Babu Lal vs. D.D.C., Allahabad and others
Hinchlal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and others
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.