Back
DINESH PATHAK
Smt. Lachho Devi – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on the merits of remand and evidence evaluation (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. dispute over the succession and documentary evidence required (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. jurisdiction and powers of the deputy director under u.p.c.h. act (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. judge's opinion on remand and need for merit evaluation (Para 15) |
| 6. writ petition allowed, quashing of impugned order (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Pathak, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.3 to 7.
2. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
3. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed herein-under, this Court proceeds to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without putting notice to respondent No.8/1 and 9/1, with the consent of the counsel for the parties present and without calling for their respective affidavits.
4. Petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of In
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'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 court affirmed the authority of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand cases for fresh decisions when evidence requires further inquiry, underscoring the need for thorough examination bef....
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.
Amendments to grounds of appeal that seek to change the character of the case cannot be permitted at advanced stages of litigation, particularly when earlier opportunities to introduce such arguments....
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
