CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Gabbu Lal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Dharmendrahar Dubey for petitioners, Mr. Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta for respondent No. 5-Gram Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 145 and original holding of petitioner is plot no. 45 area 0.511 hectare. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed two chak to petitioner, first chak on plot No. 43 M area 0.090 plot No. 45 M area 0.178 and Second Chak on plot No. 782/1 area 0.002, 783 area 0.050, 784 area 0.134. Respondent No. 4 is chak holder No. 194-Aa and Vijay Shanker (son of respondent No. 4) is chak holder No. 930. Petitioner filed a chak objection against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming allotment on plot Nos. 75 and 76 which was recorded as bachat. The grievance of the petitioner was considered and consolidation officer vide order dated 30.10.2018 decided the chak objection by allotting chak on plot Nos. 75, 76, 777 and 784. Respondent No. 4/Smt Gulabi Devi filed an appeal under Section 21 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of holdings Act 1953 her
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court mandated reconsideration of land allotment claims, emphasizing the necessity of a fair hearing for all affected parties under 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 allotment of roadside plots under consolidation laws must reflect the shares of each holder without illegality in the decision-making process.
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 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 upheld the legality of Chak allotment under the U.P.C.H. Act, affirming adherence to principles of rectangulation and consideration of irrigation sources.
Point of Law : Power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate a....
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.