Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Shailendra Nath Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Sri. Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and Sri. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners along with other villagers of the village Maudhiya, Pargana + Tehsil Jakhaniya, Ghazipur filed an application before the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow on 13.9.2006 with the prayer that provisional consolidation scheme be taken place afresh or the village in question be notified under Section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") in order to protect the land belonging to Gaon Sabha. On the aforementioned application dated 13.9.2006, an objection was invited by respondent no.1 from his subordinate authorities vide order dated 22.9.2006. One Smt. Sona Devi filed an application along with order dated 2.3.2007, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.11742/2004 before respondent no.1 on which an explanation was asked from the authorities, accordingly, the consolidation authoritie
The court upheld the Consolidation Commissioner's order, affirming that the provisions of Rule 17 of the U.P. C.H. Rules are guidelines, not mandatory, allowing for subjective discretion in consolida....
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.
Notifications under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are legislative functions, not subject to judicial review unless ultra vires.
The court affirmed that consolidation procedures can be reopened under Section 4-A(1) of the Act, even after prior finality, if justified in public interest.
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 time-barred objections cannot disturb previously established rights in consolidation proceedings, reinforcing the principle of finality in administrative decisions.
Objections to consolidation proceedings must be filed within statutory timelines; orders made by consolidation authorities are upheld unless shown to be illegal or lacking jurisdiction.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution 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
