CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Chhedi – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. V. Ram, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. No one appeared on behalf of respondent nos.4/1 to 4/3.
3. Notice upon respondent nos.5 to 7 has already held sufficient vide order of this Court dated 12.1.1982.
4. The instant petition is pending before this Court for last 46 years, as such, the same is being heard and disposed of finally in absence of learned counsel for private respondent nos.4/1 to 4/3.
5. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of the consolidation operation, petitioners were recorded over plots of Khata no.615 situated in Village-Saunrai, Buzurg, Pargana Kara, Tahsil-Sirathu, District-Allahabad. An objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as "U.P.C.H. Act") has been filed by respondent no.4 i.e. Chaitoo claiming right of co-tenant of 1/2 share in respect to the plot in question. Tribhuwan & others have also filed objection against basic year entry in respect to plot no.1501, 1502, 1503 claiming that plots are si
Sher Singh (dead) by legal representatives vs. Jt. Director of Consolidation and Others
The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the share of co-tenancy in ancestral property, which was affirmed by the appellate court.
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....
Compromise reached in consolidation matters prevails unless compelling evidence of illegality or misjudgment is presented; delayed appeals undermine procedural integrity.
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 onus of proving property as ancestral lies with the claimant, requiring evidence of purchase from Joint Hindu Family funds, not merely acceptance of a family tree.
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 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 Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.