Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ganesh Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Assistant D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr Zeeshan Khan holding brief of Mr Mohd Aadil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prem Chandra Maurya, holding brief of Mr. Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/3 and Mr B.N.Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Khata No- 306, 307, 49 situated in village Jai Singh Pura, Pargana-Mathura, District-Mathura was recorded in the name of respondent No-3 Triloki Nath and respondent No. 5 Kalicharan. The village in question was notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act in the year 1975. Petitioner filed a time barred objection under Section-9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on 10.1.1983 alongwith prayer of condonation of delay of about 7 year which was registered as Case No. 86 before Consolidation Officer, Baldeo, Mathura. The delay condonation matter in the aforementioned objection was heard and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 9.9.1983 granted benefit of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act in filing objection Under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act on Cost of Rs 30 and fixed 17.9. 1983 for framing of issues and evidence.
The court established that excessive delay in filing title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was aware of the proceedings.
Title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be filed within a reasonable time; excessive delays without sufficient cause render such objections inadmissible.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
The court established that cancellation of earlier consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act allows for new proceedings and does not accord finality to prior adjudications between the parties.
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.
The court ruled that time-barred objections cannot disturb previously established rights in consolidation proceedings, reinforcing the principle of finality in administrative decisions.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
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
