Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Rajendar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
2. Briefs facts of the case are that Plot No. 526/15 which originally belongs to petitioner was exchanged by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer and petitioner was allotted Plot No. 526/29 area 4.5 air (!"#) in lieu of his Plot No. 526/15 in the proceeding under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and order dated 13.06.2008 was passed by the respondent no.3/Consolidation Officer Pindra, Varansi, allotting Plot No. 557 area 112 air (!"#) without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as the petitioner was not impleaded in the proceeding. Petitioner filed an appeal no. 62/110/182 on 18.04.2011 challenging the order dated 13.06.2008 passed by the respondent no.3/Consolidation Officer Pindra, Varansi. The appeal was accompanied by application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT . Respondent no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Varanasi, vide order dated 13.02.2014 condoned delay in filing the appeal as well as partly allow
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide appeals on their merits rather than remanding to subordinate authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review under Sectio....
The court emphasized that tenure holders must be allocated chaks on original plots, and procedural fairness requires proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes.
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 mandated strict compliance with prior judicial orders by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, ensuring that adjustments to chak holdings do not violate past rulings.
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship of both parties when exercising jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court upheld the necessity of procedural fairness in consolidation proceedings, emphasizing that all parties must be afforded the opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The revisional authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can alter allotments if it considers the comparative hardship of all tenure holders, ensuring a just exercise of jurisdiction.
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
