MANISH KUMAR
Srimati Sursati – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consoldiation Faizabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Anil Kumar Mauray, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.07.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Revisional order dated 29.09.1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of the petitioner was entered in the Khasra from 1367 fasli to 1375 fasli i.e. from the year 1960 to 1968 and on the basis of which the appellate order has been passed in favour of the petitioner.
4. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner was in the Khatauni prepared prior to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into existence and even at the time of basic year fasli when the village had come under the consolidation proceedings.
5. It is further submitted that the plot alleged to be in possession of the respondent from 1368 fasli to 1370 fasli and 1371 fasli was not accepted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in its order
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has broad powers to review evidence and rectify entries in revenue records, ensuring rightful ownership is determined based on valid evidence.
Compromise reached in consolidation matters prevails unless compelling evidence of illegality or misjudgment is presented; delayed appeals undermine procedural integrity.
Entries in land records do not confer legal rights; ownership must be proven independently.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to restore revisions for adjudication; adherence to procedural fairness and inclusion of all parties is mandated under the U.P. Consolidation of ....
The petitioner failed to establish his claim of inheritance over the disputed land due to lack of evidence and failure to challenge prior orders vesting the land in the State.
Validity of recorded ownership requires substantiation through evidence, especially regarding compromises and claims made in revenue records under consolidation proceedings.
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
The Revisional Court under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can review evidence and findings from lower authorities, affirming its jurisdiction to determine land ownership dispute....
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.
Delay of 10 years in filing a writ petition justified dismissal, emphasizing the importance of timely action in legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.