Back
DINESH PATHAK
Ratan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Pathak, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, owing to procedural mistake, the Tehsil Record [Namantaran Bahi- (R-6)]could not properly be prepared in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in reference proceeding No. 1128.
3. From the record it reveals that, to correct the mistake in Namantaran Bahi (R-6) available in Tehsil record room, petitioner has moved an application under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (in brevity, U.P.C.H. Rules). The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 25.04.2016, has rejected the application, however, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, on appeal being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has allowed the same and issued a direction for correction of the relevant documents in pursuance of the order dated 15.10.1979. Against the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, a restoration application has been filed on behalf of the state authorities which was allowed by order dated 26.04.2021 quashing the earlier order dated 08.03.2017. Ha
Consolidation Authorities are legally obligated to implement judicial orders from consolidation courts, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of duty.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
Administrative authorities cannot recall judicial orders without due process, and principles of natural justice require a hearing before adverse actions affecting rights.
The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.
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.
Delay in filing an appeal against consolidation orders must be satisfactorily explained; otherwise, the order is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.
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
