Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Khatun Begum – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manu Khare, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 &4 and Mr. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to khasara No.121 area 0-5-13 situated at village-Shekhpura Kadeem, Pargana and Tehsil-Sadar, District-Saharanpur. A registered sale deed was executed by Arun Kumar (father of respondent No.3 and husband of respondent No.4) on 15.03.1982 in favour of Sumitra Devi wife of Dharampal Jain. After death of Sumitra Devi, Dharampal Jain inherited the plot in dispute. Dharampal Jain had executed a registered sale deed on 11.02.1987 in favour of Surendra Pal Singh in respect to plot in question. Surendra Pal Singh accordingly executed a registered Sale deed on 15.01.2000 in favour of petitioner. Consolidation operation intervened in the village in question in 1978. In the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (herein after referred to as U.P.C.H. Act) which was registered as Case No.224. An order dated
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 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 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.
The court affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.
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.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
Property inheritance claims based on will versus statutory succession are to be thoroughly assessed, considering criminal convictions affecting rights under the Hindu Succession 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
