Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Iftekhar Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru. Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 06.10.2022 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) passed by respondent no.2/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Lakhimpur-Kheri (in short "DDC")in Revision No. 459/202254104300001451 ( Rameshwari Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others) which was preferred under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act, 1953").
3. The revision, indicated above, was filed by opposite party no.6/ Rameshwari Gupta assailing the order dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure No. 8 to the petition) passed by respondent no.3/Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in short "SOC") in Appeal No. 495/2020541043000266 ( Rameshwari Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others) which was preferred under Section 11(1) of Act, 1953 and also the order dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure No. 6 to the petition) passed by respondent no.4/Consolidation Officer concerned (in short "CO") in Case No(s). 244/19-20 ( Rameshwar Gupta v. Pramodgiri ) and 838/19-20 ( Vinod Kediya
The court affirmed that a valid party must be aggrieved for legal standing, particularly regarding consolidation and property rights under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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.
The court reaffirmed that mere revenue entries do not suffice to establish adverse possession, which requires demonstrable continuity, publicity, and intent to possess as owner, thus justifying the i....
Personal action dies with the death of the person on the maxim action personalis moritur cum persona. But this operates only in a limited class of actions Ex delicto, such as action for damages for d....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot review its orders on merits, but the High Court may refrain from interference if substantial justice is achieved.
Point of Law : A compromise having been filed before the Consolidation Officer, was not verified in terms of Rule 25A of the Rules of 1954, where it has been specifically provided that the Assistant ....
A recorded tenant's consent is essential for an unrecorded co-tenant to acquire Bhumidhari rights; absence of such consent invalidates claims to ownership.
Point of Law : Civil Law - Possession - A party laying his claim on basis of adverse possession in some property has to prove as to date, time and manner in which possession is converted into open, h....
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
