Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Krishna Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Sri Ashish Chandra Nishad, learned standing counsel for the state respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot of khata no.74, situated in village Mataundh, Pergana, Tahasil & District- Banda which was recorded in the basic year khatauni in the name of Gulab Shankar and Krishna Kumar (petitioner). Plot of khata no.185 was recorded in the name of petitioner’s mother and Gulab Shanker and plot of khata no.190 was recorded in the name of Gulab Shanker and petitioner. The family pedigree of petitioner and respondent no.3 is as under:-
Gulab Shanker died issueless, as such, name of petitioner and respondent no.3 were recorded on the basis of Pa Ka 11 in the year 1983. During consolidation operation, plots of aforementioned khata were ordered to be recorded as ½ share each in the name of petitioner and respondent no.3 by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 26.11.1990 passed on the basis of compromise. Petitioner challenged the order dated 26.11.1990 by way of appeal under Section 11(
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 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 affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to restore revisions for adjudication; adherence to procedural fairness and inclusion of all parties is mandated under the U.P. Consolidation of ....
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 court affirmed that orders of the Consolidation Officer are not subject to challenge under Article 226, and applications under Rule 109-A are not maintainable when related appeals are pending.
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
