Back
DINESH PATHAK
Praveen Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Pathak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State respondents no.1 to 4.
2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner (respondent no.2) whereby representation moved on his behalf beseeching issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act') to cancel the consolidation operation has been rejected.
3. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perusal of record, it is manifested that the village in question i.e. Gram Bhandri, Tehsil Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, is second time notified for Consolidation operation in the year 2009 and the consolidation operation is still going on in the village. The previous consolidation operation was completed in the year 1964. It is case of the petitioner that most of the villagers are in favour of cancelling the consolidation operation, therefore, a representation was moved before the autho
Notifications under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are legislative functions, not subject to judicial review unless ultra vires.
The court upheld the Consolidation Commissioner's order, affirming that the provisions of Rule 17 of the U.P. C.H. Rules are guidelines, not mandatory, allowing for subjective discretion in consolida....
The timing and implications of the publication of notification under Section 5(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, and the jurisdiction of Co....
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 court affirmed that consolidation procedures can be reopened under Section 4-A(1) of the Act, even after prior finality, if justified in public interest.
The Director of Consolidation lacks jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes under the Consolidation Act, which can only be revoked by the State Government.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
Objections to consolidation proceedings must be filed within statutory timelines; orders made by consolidation authorities are upheld unless shown to be illegal or lacking jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.
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
