Back
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI
Ram Ajor – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) :
Heard, Sri Awadesh Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to finally decide the present Writ Petition at the admission stage itself.
3. The relevant facts in brief, as narrated by the petitioners in the writ petition, are that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 belong to the same family and the dispute is in respect of a property that belonged to Late Shiv Gulam, who was the ancestor of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2.
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners filed a partition suit bearing Suit No. 35 of 1970 (Ram Aasre and another v. Jhinnu) in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Bansi, District Basti (the then). The said Suit, on the basis of a compromise between the parties, was decided on 19.8.1970 and the decree was passed on 30.1.1971. The respondent No. 2-Rajendera alongwith two others namely Sri. M
Restoration applications under CPC do not abate under Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act, allowing for adjudication on merits.
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that abatement under the Bihar Consolidation Act is not permanent and can be reversed upon denotification of the consolidation scheme.
The court affirmed that disputes regarding consolidation schemes must be resolved through appellate remedies, and title disputes among estate holders are to be adjudicated by civil courts, not under ....
Parties must show vested interest to contest consolidation proceedings; the Revisional Authority has the power to rectify procedural lapses under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,....
Legal proceedings initiated after the issuance of consolidation notifications are invalid under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as outlined in Section 5(2), and proper filing o....
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
The ceiling proceedings under the Odisha Land Reforms Act do not abate due to ongoing consolidation operations under the Consolidation Act, as they are distinct matters requiring separate determinati....
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
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
