Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Jogendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Supplementary affidavit along with certified copy of the impugned order is taken on record.
2. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Gaon Sabha as respondent no.20 in the writ petition during course of the day and serve the copy of the writ petition upon Mr. Krishan Kant Mani, learned counsel for respondent-Gaon Sabha.
3. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Krishna Kant Mani, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
4. Brief facts of the case are that title dispute under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred as U.P.C.H. Act was registered as case No. 1238 of 2022, Computerized case No. 20225409601031238 State Vs. Labh Singh. The aforementioned case was decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.7.2024 altering the entry of the plot belonging to petitioner along with others. In pursuance of the order dated 3.7.2024, proceeding under Rule 109 (A) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1954 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules has been initiated and Consolid
The failure to provide an opportunity to lead evidence in title disputes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act violates principles of natural justice, allowing for judicial review under Articl....
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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.
The civil court's decree in an injunction suit cannot be enforced under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, affirming the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities.
Failure to provide a hearing and frame issues as required by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act renders the adjudication void.
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.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
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 established that cancellation of earlier consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act allows for new proceedings and does not accord finality to prior adjudications between the parties.
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....
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
