Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Shiv Ram – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bansh Narayan Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no.134 situated in Village-Jagdishpur Pure Chandra, Pargana-Soraon, District-Allahabad. The aforementioned plot was recorded in the name of respondent nos.4 to 8 (Mathura Prasad and Others). At the time of the verification of the records during consolidation operation, it was found that plot no.134 had two division, i.e. 134/1 & 134/2. 134/1 area 9 biswa, 10 biswansi and plot no.134/2 area 2 biswa 10 biswansi. Plot no. 134/2 was found to be abadi of petitioners' father (Sita Ram). Petitioners' father filed an objection with respect to the plot no.134/2 area 2 biswa, 10 biswansi to the effect that he had been possession over the 2 biswa land of the aforementioned plot since long and remaining area was in possession of one Hari Lal, as such, both have become Sirdar. The aforementioned objection was registered as Case No.13405 under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act"). The Con
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 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 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.
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 Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to restore revisions for adjudication; adherence to procedural fairness and inclusion of all parties is mandated under the U.P. Consolidation of ....
The failure to provide an opportunity to lead evidence in title disputes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act violates principles of natural justice, allowing for judicial review under Articl....
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.
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
