Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ajeet – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Surendra Kumar Tiwari, assisted by Sri Vishal Khandelwal / Sri Sushil Dubey for contesting respondent no.8 and the learned standing counsel for the state respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.3.2022, passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No.17/2008 (Computerized Case No.C2008110017) (Jai Ram and Others v. Ram Das and Others), under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, by which the matter has been remanded back to the trial court to decide the case Under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act on merits, after opportunity of hearing to the parties to the dispute.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Phool Singh was the original tenure holder of the plots of khata No.8 and khata No. 10 situated in VillageChitahara, Pargana & Tehsil-Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar. Phool Singh had three sons namely Goverdhan, Har Narayan and Devi Singh. Petitioners and contesting respondents are heirs & legal representatives of the three branches namely Goverdhan, Har Narayan and Devi Singh. Consolidation operation started in the village in questi
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 affirmed the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares based on the sale deed, rejecting reliance on abated proceedings in title disputes.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
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 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 affirmed that orders of the Consolidation Officer are not subject to challenge under Article 226, and applications under Rule 109-A are not maintainable when related appeals are pending.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
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
