Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Consolidation Committee – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. Faizabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Mr. M. A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Udai Bhan Pandey, learned counsel for the private-respondent No. 2 and Mr. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 10.7.1998 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, District-Faizabad, now Ayodhya (hereinafter referred to as the 'D.D.C.'), in Revision No. 2774 (Mata Prasad v. Buddhi Ram and others) which was filed under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short the 'Act of 1953').
3. By the impugned order dated 10.7.1998, the respondent No. 1-D.D.C. caused interference in the order dated 18.2.1998 passed by Consolidation Officer, Kuchera, Tehsil-Milkipur, District-Faizabad, now Ayodhya (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.O.) in exercise of power under Section 21(1) of the Act of 1953, as appears from Annexure 3 to the present petition, and order dated 8.6.1998, passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad, now Ayodhya (herein after referred to as the 'S.O.C.') in Appeal No. 955 (Mata Prasad v. Gram Sabha and others) preferred under Se
Failure to file objections against the Statement of Principles under Section 9-B invokes the bar of Section 11-A, preventing subsequent claims in consolidation proceedings.
A party must file timely objections under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, or claims related to land within the consolidation scheme are deemed invalid, and previous orders cannot be ....
The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allows authorities to adjudicate on land rights even when a wrong provision is cited, as long as they possess the necessary jurisdiction.
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....
Consolidation authorities must adhere to statutory provisions when allotting chak(s) and provide justifications for deviations to ensure equitable treatment of tenure holders.
Consolidation authorities must adhere to statutory provisions when allotting chaks, ensuring tenure holders receive compact areas near their largest holdings.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot review its orders on merits, but the High Court may refrain from interference if substantial justice is achieved.
The consolidation authorities must allot compact areas reflecting legal rights under Section 19(1)(e), ensuring valid reasons for any deviations from the standard principles of allotment.
Consolidation authorities must adhere to statutory provisions in allotting chaks, ensuring tenure holders receive compact areas where they hold the largest part of their holdings.
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
