Back
SALIL KUMAR RAI
Ram Preet Yadav – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents.
3. The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 316/1, the total area of which was 0.166 hectare. The petitioner is the original tenure holder of the disputed plot. During the consolidation operations, 0.045 hectare of the plot was initially excluded from the consolidation operations. The respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed an application under Section 9 -A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') registering Case No. 516 claiming that the plot was liable to be included in the consolidation operations and was wrongly excluded from the same. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 3.3.1997 determined the valuation of the plot and included it within the consolidation operations. Against the order dated 3.3.1997 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 756 of 1997 under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1953 which was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vid
The court mandated strict compliance with prior judicial orders by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, ensuring that adjustments to chak holdings do not violate past rulings.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot review its orders on merits, but the High Court may refrain from interference if substantial justice is achieved.
The modification of plot allocation that renders it unfit for cultivation contradicts the purpose of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, requiring respect for original allocations essential for e....
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 failure to frame issues and allow evidence in property disputes violates procedural fairness, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the U.P.C.H. Act, particularly Section 21(1), in determining the rightful allocation of land and valuation....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
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
