Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Amar Nath – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.7-Gaon Sabha.
2.Brief facts of the case are that two separate revision filed by petitioner as well as one Ram Autar were allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide common order dated 12.03.1993. Against the order dated 12.03.1993 a restoration application was filed by the petitioner on 23/ 25.04.2005 along with separate application for condonation of delay. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 22.06.2006 granted benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as allowed the restoration application dated 23/ 25.04.2005 filed by petitioner and modified the earlier order dated 12.03.1993 to the extent of allotment of plot No.486, 487 and 486 to the petitioner affecting the interest of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 and reserved certain area of the aforementioned plot as chak marg. Against the order dated 22.06.2006 restoration application dated 20.03.2021 has been filed by respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 along with prayer for condonation of delay for recall
The court upheld the validity of a restoration application allowed after 15 years, emphasizing the importance of providing parties an opportunity to present their case in consolidation proceedings.
The comparative hardship of the parties must be considered in chak allotment disputes, and a writ should not be dismissed as infructuous when substantive rights are at stake.
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 court emphasized that rival claims based on wills must be adjudicated on merit, and technical dismissals should not prevent fair hearings.
The court emphasized that delay in filing a restoration application undermines the right to challenge prior orders, reinforcing the principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied.
A party must demonstrate substantive rights to challenge consolidation orders; inordinate delay in seeking restoration applications without sufficient explanation cannot be condoned.
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
