Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Ram Kinkar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of consolidation proceedings and appeals (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. objections in consolidation hearings under section 11-a (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. considerations for land type in consolidation (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. bar under section 11-a for nature of land considerations (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. distinguishable cases regarding objection bar (Para 13 , 16) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents no.5, 6 and 7 and Sri A.K.Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. In present case, proceedings under Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1953') were initiated in pursuance of publication of Provisional Consolidation Scheme under Section 20 of Act of 1953, wherein the Consolidation Officer has considered objections filed by petitioner as well as respondents. Objections filed by Ram Nath (father of respondent nos.10 and 12) were allowed, whereas objections filed by Raj Bahadur, respondent no.5 and the petitioner (Ram Kiran Singh) wer
A party must file timely objections under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, or claims related to land within the consolidation scheme are deemed invalid, and previous orders cannot be ....
Legal proceedings initiated after the issuance of consolidation notifications are invalid under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as outlined in Section 5(2), and proper filing o....
Failure to file objections against the Statement of Principles under Section 9-B invokes the bar of Section 11-A, preventing subsequent claims in consolidation proceedings.
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
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.
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 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....
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
