Back
MANISH KUMAR
Jageshwar – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard Shri. Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Shri. Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 assisted by Shri. P. Venkatesh, Advocate. However, as far as respondent nos. 5 to 10 are concerned, it is mentioned in the service report dated 23.10.2013 that notices were issued to them by speed post but neither any undelivered cover received back as yet and none appear for their behalf. It has also been apprised to this Court that Shri. Sher Bahadur Yadav had filed vakalatnama on 17.05.2023 on behalf of respondent no. 4 but due to some inadvertence, respondent no. 6 was mentioned in place of respondent no. 4.
2. Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the judgment and order of the revisional Court dated 20.09.2012 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 under Section 48 of the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1953) and the impugned judgment and orders dated 02.07.2010 and dated 31.10.2005 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 28.
The failure to frame issues and allow evidence in property disputes violates procedural fairness, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
Parties must show vested interest to contest consolidation proceedings; the Revisional Authority has the power to rectify procedural lapses under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,....
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their case; decisions made in haste without hearing can lead to prejudice.
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....
It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal ....
Rejecting title of on trees and boring well - land in dispute belongs to Gram Samaj therefore even if the orders passed by the lower authorities were not sustainable and quashed, no fruitful purpose ....
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
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
