Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ram Singh – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. V.P. Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the substituted contesting respondent no.3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to khata No.119 situated in village-Gongaband, Pargana-Kheragarh, District-Agra. One Mst. Phoola who was recorded tenure holder of the plot in question had executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner and respondent no.3 on 1.8.1966. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed dated 1.8.1966 petitioner and respondent no.3 came in possession over the same as well as both of them were recorded in the mutation proceeding initiated by them on the basis of registered sale deed dated 1.8.1966. In the basic year of consolidation operation, petitioner and respondent no.3 were recorded over the plot in question. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") for partition of his 1/2 share. Respondent no.3 claimed 3/4 share in the plot in dispute. The ob
The court affirmed the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares based on the sale deed, rejecting reliance on abated proceedings in title disputes.
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 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 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 Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded jurisdiction by not considering the limitation and locus standi of the respondents in appeals under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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....
The court upheld the legality of the consolidation process, confirming that the Settlement Officer acted within jurisdiction and properly recorded findings regarding the division of the disputed plot....
The Revisional Court under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can review evidence and findings from lower authorities, affirming its jurisdiction to determine land ownership dispute....
The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the share of co-tenancy in ancestral property, which was affirmed by the appellate court.
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
