Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Mahadev Construction Company Mig-69 – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari and Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. Shashi Kant Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the case are that recorded tenure holders had executed a Sale-deed in favour of Subhash Chandra Khandelwal and Saroj Agrawal in respect to plot No-48/10, 59 M, 60 M situated at Village-Dibdiba, Tehsil-Bilaspur, District-Rampur. On the basis of aforementioned sale-deed name of Subhash Chandra Khandelwal and Saroj Agrawal were recorded under Section-12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act). Saroj Agrawal later on executed a sale-dead in favour of respondent No.3/ Surendra Singh @ Surendra Singh Grover. Subhash Chandra Khandelwal had executed a sale-deed on12.4.2005 in favour of petitioner No 3. On the basis of aforementioned sale-deed dated 12.4.2005 name of petitioner No.3 was recorded in the revenue record and he further executed sale deed on 30.1.2017 in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 accordingly name of petitioner
The court upheld the necessity of procedural fairness in consolidation proceedings, emphasizing that all parties must be afforded the opportunity to present their case and evidence.
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 finality of earlier orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be respected, and due process must be followed in land record matters.
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 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 Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide appeals on their merits rather than remanding to subordinate authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review under Sectio....
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.
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
