Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Shiv Shankar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. , Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-Sri Varun Pratap Singh and Sri Swarnim Pandey; learned counsel for the State, Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, Advocate and Sri Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for opposite party No.7 on whose behalf a Vakaltnama has been filed, which is taken on record and Sri Vikram Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party Nos.6 and 8, who are real brothers of opposite party No.7, as the facts of the case are not in dispute and to the view of this Court even on appearance these parties would not be in position to dispute the facts and in view of the order proposed to be passed the matter would be heard and decided on merits and accordingly, the notice to opposite party Nos.6 and 8 is dispensed with and with the consent of the Counsel for the parties who are present before this Court this petition is being decided at admission stage.
3. Present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
Relief not sought in specific terms cannot be granted, emphasizing the necessity of proper pleadings in legal proceedings.
The failure to frame issues and allow evidence in property disputes violates procedural fairness, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
The court ruled that a party's knowledge of an order and failure to justify significant delays in appeals precludes the recall of orders passed on merits.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their case; decisions made in haste without hearing can lead to prejudice.
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
The court established that under the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, authorities retain the power to correct entries in revenue records even after the finalization of consolidation proceedings,....
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 emphasized the necessity of fair representation and substantiated reasoning in administrative decisions, especially when property rights are at stake.
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
