Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Anwar Beg – Appellant
Versus
Jabiullah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri Ishwar Dutt Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for private opposite party and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for State.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.5.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur (in short ''D.D.C.'') in Revision Nos. 246/365 and 1958/157, which were filed under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in short ''Act of 1953''). Relevant portion of the order impugned dated 18.5.2002 on reproduction reads as under :
3. It would be relevant to refer at this stage that the order impugned dated 18.5.2002 was passed in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1920 of 1983 (Rafi Mohd. and others v. Deputy Direction of Consolidation and others), Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1983 (Zabiullah and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others) and Writ Petition No. 2335 of 1983 (Anwar and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others).
4. In above indicated writ petitions, as appears from the judgment and order of Writ Court dated 7.8.1989,
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
The court affirmed the authority of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand cases for fresh decisions when evidence requires further inquiry, underscoring the need for thorough examination bef....
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their case; decisions made in haste without hearing can lead to prejudice.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
Point of Law : A compromise having been filed before the Consolidation Officer, was not verified in terms of Rule 25A of the Rules of 1954, where it has been specifically provided that the Assistant ....
The failure to frame issues and allow evidence in property disputes violates procedural fairness, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
Writ petitions must demonstrate material deprivation and include necessary parties, or they risk dismissal as mis-conceived.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible.
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
