Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Faujdar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Consolidation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the order due to lack of review power. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments defending the legitimacy of the order. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis on authority and decisions. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 4. principle of substantial justice and review jurisdiction. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. final dismissal of petition. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow in the proceedings initiated under Rule 65(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short "Rules of 1954"), which was registered as Transfer Application No. 11A/452 of 2022 (R. Review).
3. The order impugned has been assailed only one ground that the Additional Commissioner Consolidation U.P. Lucknow has passed the order dated 27.12.2022, who has no power to review its earlier order as there is no provision under the Statute namely U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act under which, any authority can review its earlier final order.
4. It is stated that during pendency of the transfer application, registered as Transfer Application No. 11A/452 of 202
Subordinate authorities cannot review final orders from higher authorities under the governing statute; adhering to higher court directives ensures substantial justice is upheld.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
The court established that under the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953, authorities retain the power to correct entries in revenue records even after the finalization of consolidation proceedings,....
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their case; decisions made in haste without hearing can lead to prejudice.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible.
Point of Law : If there was any technical violation of the rules of natural justice, that was not a ground for interference, as such interference would result in resurrection of an illegal, nay, void....
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
