Back
RAJNISH KUMAR
Mukadam – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Devi Patna Mandal, Tehsil Payagpur, Behraich – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Kumar, J.
Heard, Shri R.J.Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich in Case No.0060 of 2019, under Section 48 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as the U.P.C.H.Act) to the extent the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to opposite parties to maintain the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by the Consolidation Officer.
3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was allowed but the appeal was allowed and revision was rejected on the ground that the Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act has been issued, whereas the same was filed prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act. The petitioner had approached this court by means of writ Petition Consolidation No.494 of 2015; Mukadam v. Deputy Director o
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 decide on merits when sufficient evidence is available, and parties must be afforded a fair hearing before any decision.
The court established that cancellation of earlier consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act allows for new proceedings and does not accord finality to prior adjudications between the parties.
Procedural dismissals do not prevent merits of subsequent appeals, ensuring timely consideration based on applicable laws.
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
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 clarified that the finality of orders under Section 9-B(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act is subject to exceptions, allowing for revisions under Section 48.
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
