Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Kedar – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. 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 -:
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 Direct
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their case; decisions made in haste without hearing can lead to prejudice.
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....
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 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.
The failure to frame issues and allow evidence in property disputes violates procedural fairness, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
The Revisional Authority's power to overturn concurrent findings of lower authorities is limited to cases of substantial irregularity or injustice.
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
