Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Lallan Singh – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Sri. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Kashi Nath Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Sri. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to plots of khata no.299 situated in village Baddopur, pargana- Nizamabad, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Azamgarh. The aforementioned disputed plot was recorded in the name of Ram Bachhan (father of petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 & 5) and Ram Lakhan (father of Smt. Kantraji and brother of Ramdas). According to respondent nos. 2 & 3, Ram Lakhan had executed a registered will deed on 15.5.1993 in favour of Smt. Kantraji and Ram Das. According to petitioner, Ram Lakhan had executed an unregistered will deed on 24.9.1994 in favour of petitioner as well as respondent nos. 4 & 5 and the earlier will deed dated 15.5.1993 was revoked. In the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to "U.P. C.H. Act"), which was registered as Case No.1460 of 1995, the consolidation officer passed an order on 15.5.1995 for recording the name of petitioner along with respo
The court emphasized that rival claims based on wills must be adjudicated on merit, and technical dismissals should not prevent fair hearings.
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 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.
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 revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
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.
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
