Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Maya Devi – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Pandey, learned State Counsel and Sri Sandeep Kumar learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the side opposite.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents/opposite party is dispensed with.
3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.03.2007 passed by opposite party no.3/Consolidation Officer, Ucchaulia, District Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'C.O.') in Case No. 66,341,342,343,344 (Indra Pal Singh and Others v. Gajar Singh and Others) filed under Section 9A(2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953'), as also the order dated 26.06.2013 passed by opposite party no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'SOC') in appeal no. 799/2007 (Maya Devi v. Chandrakali and Others) filed under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953 and also the order dated 28.12.2023 passed in Revision No. 471/202254104300001338 (Maya Devi v. Chandrakali and Others) filed under Section 148 of the Act of 1953, passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolid
Substantial justice must be served in property succession cases, even if procedural irregularities exist, as per statutory provisions.
Succession rights under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are governed by principles of survivorship for heirs, as per Sections 171 and 175, validating joint succession claims.
Legal proceedings initiated after the issuance of consolidation notifications are invalid under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as outlined in Section 5(2), and proper filing o....
The court affirmed the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares based on the sale deed, rejecting reliance on abated proceedings in title disputes.
A party must file timely objections under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, or claims related to land within the consolidation scheme are deemed invalid, and previous orders cannot be ....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the effect of a preliminary decree for partition and the issue of survivorship in the case of the death of a co-owner.
The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allows authorities to adjudicate on land rights even when a wrong provision is cited, as long as they possess the necessary 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
