Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Kali Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute details under u.p. consolidation act (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments based on possession and records (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural errors (Para 9 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. respondents' counterclaims on petitioner's assertions (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. (Para 21 , 23) |
| 6. final ruling directing remand and timelines (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mahendra Pratap Tiwari, learned counsel for contesting respondents.
2. This dispute is arising out of objections filed under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1953). There is no serious dispute that in basic year entries in regard to disputed land was in favour of respondent no. 4. In the proceedings, according to the then provision of Act of 1953, conciliation proceedings were undertaken and purportedly a compromise was prepared. However, it appears that it was not materialized and matter was later on referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer for cons
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....
Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
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.
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....
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,....
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....
Reliance solely on historical land ownership entries without supporting evidence from parties can lead to erroneous conclusions, requiring a reevaluation of claims based on tangible evidence.
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
