Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Jag Narayan – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.P. Tiwari as well as Mr. Hanuman Deen Verma, learned counsels for the contesting respondents and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 128 area 3-12-3 belong to Vidya Niwas and Vidya Saran having one-half share each. Petitioner nos. 8 to 12 are the legal heirs of Vidya Saran who executed sale deed dated 16.5.2002 in favour of petitioner nos. 1 to 7. The sale deed dated 16.5.2002 was rectified by way of rectification deed dated 26.6.2003 executed by the petitioner nos. 8 to 12. Smt. Parmesara wife of Vidya Niwas who had also half share in the disputed property executed sale deed dated 26.10.1978 in favour of contesting respondents. Smt. Parmesara had also executed rectification deed dated 11.2.1992. Chak No. 95 was carved out in the name of petitioner nos. 8 to 12 whereas chak No. 64 was carved out in the name of contesting respondents. There was no partition between the parties in respect to the aforementioned plot. The aforementioned plot No. 128 was divided in five sub divisions. The particular of the
The court upheld the legality of the consolidation process, confirming that the Settlement Officer acted within jurisdiction and properly recorded findings regarding the division of the disputed plot....
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's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
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 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allows authorities to adjudicate on land rights even when a wrong provision is cited, as long as they possess the necessary jurisdiction.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded jurisdiction by not considering the limitation and locus standi of the respondents in appeals under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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.
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
