SAURABH LAVANIA
Jasvinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation/Addl. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri Nazim Ali Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 3 is hereby dispensed with. Liberty is also provided to the respondent No.3 to file an appropriate application of recall of this order, if they are aggrieved by it.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.12.2022, whereby, the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Lakhimpur Kheri remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer concerned for deciding the case afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation. The operative portion of the order dated 22.12.2022 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
4. From the order impugned dated 22.12.2022 including the operative portion of the same, quoted above, it is apparent that the Consolidation Officer has to provide only proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and thereafter he has to pass a reasoned order on each issue.
Ashwin Kumar Patel v. Upendra J. Patel
Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur
Bashir Ahmad v. DDC 1986 RD 164
Deena Nath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Gaya Din (D) through L.Rs v. Hanuman Prasad (D) through L. Rs. 2001 (92) RD 79 (SC)
Jagdamba Prasad v. Kripa Shankar
Preetam Singh v. Assistant Director of Consolidation (1996) 2 SCC 270
Ram Avtar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Sheo Nand v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad
Sher Singh (dead) v. Joint Director of Consolidation
Sheshmani v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Basti, U.P.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to examine and decide cases on merits without unnecessary remand, emphasizing the need for expedient resolution of disputes.
The court affirmed the authority of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand cases for fresh decisions when evidence requires further inquiry, underscoring the need for thorough examination bef....
The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
The main legal point established is that revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and the authority m....
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 adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
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.
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.