IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Kedar and Others - Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. and Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 14185 OF 1986.
Decided On : 05-01-2024
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
This case is arising out of consolidation proceedings. In the basic year, over plot no. 421 area 1 acre 73 decimal situated at village Kodari, Pargana Bayalasi, Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur, name of original petitioner's father Dallan was recorded.
2. Opposite parties no. 5 to 9 filed their objections before the Consolidation Officer that they along with the petitioners belong to a joint family and disputed land was joint family property and as such they claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed land.
3. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 23.03.1967 rejected the objections of respondents under Section 9A(2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and entries of basic year were confirmed. Relevant part of the order is quoted below :-
mijksDr cgl ls izekf.kr gS fd oknhx.k izfroknh ds firk ds gh oa'kt gSaA
tgka td lg [krsnkjh dk iz'u gS fd izfroknh dh vksj ls dgk x;k fd fookfnr Hkwfe muds }kjk izkIr dh x;h vkSj oknhx.k us crkSj ljek;k [kkunku dh gSfl;r ls fookfnr Hkwfe dks izfroknh }kjk izkIr crkrsA mls vius dks lg[kkrsnkj crk;k oknh dh vksj ls fn;s x;s c;ku ls Li"V gksrk gS fd oknhx.k o izfroknhx.k vyx&vyx jgrs gaA ,slh fLFkfr esa mHk; i{k ds la;qDr gksus rFkk izfroknh }kjk lcdh vksj ls crkSj ekfyd ds dk;Z dks is'k djds fLFkfr fujk/kkj gSA oknh dh vkifÙk O;FkZ gSA
vr% vkns'k gqvk fd [kkrk ua0 12 l 109 ls xTtu bR;kfn dh vkifÙk [kkfjt gks uacj 191@2@&02 xS0e0'kk0tks ntZ gks okn vey njken fefly nkf[ky n¶rj gksA**
[emphasis supplied]
4. Contesting respondents being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, however, it was dismissed on 08.09.1967. A copy of said order is not annexed along with this writ petition. The above order was challenged at behest of the respondents by way of filing a revision petition.
5. The petitioners filed a transfer application before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur as revision petitioner was pending for many years, however, same was rejected by an order dated 12.05.1982 with a direction to parties to appear on 31.05.1982.
6. Case of petitioners is that the Revisional Authority who was at verge of his retirement has expedited the proceedings and rejected prayer of adjournment and proceeded with revision petition and decided by an ex-parte order dated 29.05.1982 whereby revision was allowed. Relevant part of the order is mentioned below:-
vr% ;g lk{; esa xzkg; Hkh ugha gSA nwljs cSukek fnukad 21-01-68 esa ntu iq= vuq:i fy[kk gS bldk Hkh dksbZ vU; lk{; ugha gSA fuxjkuhdrkZvksa us ;g crk;k gS fd Lo:i vkSj vuq:i ,d gh O;fDr gSA Hktu ds c;ku esa Hkh firk dk uke vuq:i fy[kk gSA blls Hkh dksbZ varj ugha gSA D;ksafd vuq:i vkSj Lo:i ,d gh O;fDr gS ;g c;ku Hkh lk{; esa xzkg; ugha gS D;ksafd Hktu dks ryc djds iwNrkN ugha dh x;hA ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd fuxjkuhdrkZvksa us c;ku rgjhjh Li"V fy[kk gS fd nyu vius Hkkb;ksa esa lcls cM+s FksA vuq:i dh udy QkSrh Hkh nkf[ky gS ftlds vuqlkj mudh e`R;q fnukad 06-03-58 dks gqbZ gSA nyu ds c;ku ls Hkh Li"V gS fd
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.
Parties must show vested interest to contest consolidation proceedings; the Revisional Authority has the power to rectify procedural lapses under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,....
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....
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
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 failure to frame issues and allow evidence in property disputes violates procedural fairness, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
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.
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.