Back
DINESH PATHAK
Chhotee – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Pathak, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and perused the record on board.
2. Vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed by this Court, notices upon the private respondents are deemed to be sufficient. However, no one has appeared on behalf of private respondents, therefore, the instant writ petition is being decided exparte against them.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved with the remand order dated 20.10.1996 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.672 (Chunnu v. Smt. Tirri and others) and Revision No.673 (Smt. Tirri v. Chunnu and others).
4. Facts culled out from the record are that during Provisional Consolidation Scheme, chak no.312 had been proposed to Lalu son of Maiku. Owing to death of recorded chak holder, following four set of objections have been filed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must decide on merits when sufficient evidence is available, and parties must be afforded a fair hearing before any decision.
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 Deputy Director of Consolidation must exercise jurisdiction to decide on matters without unnecessary remand when evidence is available, emphasizing efficiency in litigation.
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.
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
