Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Munni Lal – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Dr. Vinod K Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no.2/2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot No. 499Ba area 1 bigha 10 biswa 8 dhur situated in Village Makanpur, Pargana Bhadohi, District Varanasi. In the basic year entry khatauni, the afoementioned plot was recorded in the name of Udit Narayan by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9.12.1965. The name of Sarabjeet and Lalta were also recorded as co-tenure holders over the land in dispute and area of plot No. 499/2 was ordered to be corrected as 12 biswa and area of plot No. 499/3 was ordered to be corrected as 12 biswa 10 dhur. On the basis of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 9.12.1965, C.H. Form 11 was accordingly prepared. The aforementioned plot was chak out hence in C.H. Form 23 those plots were recorded in the name of Udit Narayn, Sarabjeet and Lalta. The bhoomidhari sanad was accordingly issued in favour of Udit Narayan, Sarabjeet and Lalta. On the basis of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 4.10.1968, the nature of the land was recorded as bhoomi
Title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be filed within a reasonable time; excessive delays without sufficient cause render such objections inadmissible.
The court established that excessive delay in filing title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was aware of the proceedings.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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 the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
Failure to provide a hearing and frame issues as required by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act renders the adjudication void.
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.
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.
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
