Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 12/2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant Amendment Application has been filed on 13.12.2023 by which prayer has been made to allow the amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition for quashing the orders dated 02.02.2000 and 26.08.2001 passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act.
3. Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, no case is made out for Amendment by which prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 02.02.2000 & 26.08.2001 passed by Consolidation Officer/Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act, although the instant writ petition arises out of reference proceeding.
4. The Amendment Application is accordingly, rejected.
Order on Writ Petition
1. Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Autar Verma as well as Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 9 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Plot No. 3538 Area 2.88 acare situated in
The court held that challenges to orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act after a significant delay are not permissible, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
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 court upheld the necessity of procedural fairness in consolidation proceedings, emphasizing that all parties must be afforded the opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The civil court's decree in an injunction suit cannot be enforced under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, affirming the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities.
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's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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.
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
