Back
DINESH PATHAK
Ashok Nishad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1 & 2.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in proceeding under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity ‘U.P.C.H. Act') whereby name of Jamuna (predecessor in the interest of the petitioner) has been ordered to be deleted from plot No.116 measuring area 0.238 hectare.
3. Facts culled out from the record are that Smt.Gulabi wife of Daulat (predecessor in the interest of Chandra Shekhar-respondent No.3) and Jamuna (predecessor in the interest of the present petitioner) are co-tenure holders in Khata No.24/1, plot No.55 measuring area 0.376. During consolidation operation they have been proposed chak over plot No.54M. area 0.048 hectare, plot No.55M. area 0.308 hectare and plot No.105M. area 0.001 hectare, total three plots area 0.357 hectare. By order dated 02.06.1990 passed in Case No.4688 under Section 9 of U.P.C.H. Act, share of the recorded tenure holders have been determined, accordingly, 2/3 share has been accorded to Smt.Gulabi and 1/3 share has been accord
Entries in land records do not confer legal rights; ownership must be proven independently.
Validity of recorded ownership requires substantiation through evidence, especially regarding compromises and claims made in revenue records under consolidation proceedings.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has broad powers to review evidence and rectify entries in revenue records, ensuring rightful ownership is determined based on valid evidence.
The principles of natural justice require that a recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before their rights to land are altered or cancelled.
The court upheld the Deputy Director's adjustments in land allocation, finding no violation of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, as petitioners failed to show prejudice or illegality.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded jurisdiction by not considering the limitation and locus standi of the respondents in appeals under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to restore revisions for adjudication; adherence to procedural fairness and inclusion of all parties is mandated under the U.P. Consolidation of ....
The finality of earlier orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be respected, and due process must be followed in land record matters.
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
