Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Anita – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Raghuraj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Om Narayan Dwivedi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder No. 2, respondent No. 5 is chak Holder No. 595 and respondent No. 7 is chak Holder No. 246. The original holdings of the petitioner are 178/2 M and 178/3, 179, 185, 298/1, 298/2. Petitioner was proposed two chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak on Plot No. 178/3, 179, 183/3, 195 & 184 and Second chak on Plot No. 298/2 and 300. The original holdings of respondent No. 5 are Plot No. 298 and 299. respondent No. 5 was proposed two chaks, First chak on Plot No. 197/1, 198/2 and second chak on Plot No. 298M and 299 M. Against the proposal of Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objections were filed and decided by Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.09.2022, allotting chak to petitioner on plot No. 298 and 299 area 0.069 hectare after taking out the area from plot No. 298/2 and 300. Against the order passed by Consolidation Officer dated 28.09.2022, chak appeal was filed by res
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 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 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 allotment of roadside plots under consolidation laws must reflect the shares of each holder without illegality in the decision-making process.
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 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.
The court upheld the Deputy Director's decision on plot allotment based on proper share considerations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, affirming procedural fairness in the revision proc....
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
