Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Rajeshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 263. Original holdings of the petitioner are 306/2, 87/388, 9, 10, 11, 80, 87, 104, 287, 293. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed two chaks to the petitioner. First chak on plot Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11 and second chak of plot No. 104, 105, 106. Contesting respondent No. 3 is chak holder No. 69 and original holdings of respondent No. 3 are plot No. 306/2, 87/388, 9, 10, 11, 80, 87, 104, 287, 293. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed three chaks to the respondent No. 3. First chak on plot No. 9, 11, second chak on plot Nos.79, 80 and third chak on plot Nos. 104, 106. One Prem Pal is chak holder No. 181 and original holdings of the Prem Pal are plot Nos. 9, 10, 11 having 1/3rd share. Petitioner and respondent No. 3 are real brothers. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objections were filed before Consolidation Officer,
The revisional authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can alter allotments if it considers the comparative hardship of all tenure holders, ensuring a just exercise of jurisdiction.
The allotment of chak under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must adhere to the legal provisions regarding equitable distribution among co-sharers, as confirmed in the case.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship of both parties when exercising jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court emphasized that tenure holders must be allocated chaks on original plots, and procedural fairness requires proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes.
A chak holder's entitlement can only be altered where existing agricultural rights and irrigation sources are preserved, underscoring the importance of statutory compliance in land allocation.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court upheld the D.D.C.'s order modifying chak allotments, affirming that administrative decisions should not be interfered with unless clear illegality or injustice is shown.
The court upheld the adjustment of chak allotment based on original tenure rights and comparative hardship, affirming the authority's jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The allotment of roadside plots under consolidation laws must reflect the shares of each holder without illegality in the decision-making process.
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
