Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ram Pratap – Appellant
Versus
Additional District Magistrate (Revenue And Finance) Deputy Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. S.N. Singh holding the brief of Mr. D.S. Pandey, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shamim Ahmad for respondent No.3, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1and 2 and Mr. Azad Rai for respondent No.4, Gaon Sabha.
2. The brief facts of the case are that plot No. 2183 area 5 Bigha 9 Biswa situated in Village Shah, Pargana Ayahshah, Tehsil and District Fatehpur was recorded in the name of Jagdev Singh, Krishna Pal Singh s/o of Manna Singh, Virendra Singh (Minor) under guardianship of his mother Smt. Pan Kumari. A sale deed was executed on 9.2.1989 in favour of Surjan, Sri Pat son of Bhura and Chotu son of Teja by Jagdev Singh and Krishna Pal Singh. On the basis of aforesaid sale deed, Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23.5.1989 in Case No. 149 under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ordered to record the name of vendees Surjan, Sri Pat and Chotu after expunging the name of vendor Jagdev Singh and others. After the order dated 23.5.1989 passed in the proceeding under section 12, petitioners filed an objection under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was decided on 6.11.1991 and p
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 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 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 court emphasized that proceedings should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds, advocating for a liberal approach to delay condonation.
The law of limitation must be strictly applied, and delay in filing petitions cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially in cases of negligence.
The Revisional Authority must adequately consider all grounds in disputes regarding land possession under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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
