Back
DINESH PATHAK
Krishna Dutt – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for private respondent nos. 3, 9 and 10 as well as learned standing counsel for State respondents no. 1 and 2.
2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 5.6.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.0111 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. 2021531653000111) reversing the order dated 7.10.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.63 of 2021, whereby two impleadment/amendment applications dated 18.2.2020 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed on behalf of the contesting respondents in objections under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity UPCH Act) has been rejected.
3. The facts culled out from the record are that two separate objections dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure Nos. 2 & 3) under Sections 9A(2) of the UPCH Act have been filed by Trishul and Basant Lal & two others including Trishul, respectively viz. (i) Basant Lal and two others vs. Kanhaiya Lal and others and (ii) Trishul vs. Kanhaiya Lal and other.
The court upheld the Deputy Director of Consolidation's decision to allow amendment applications, emphasizing that such amendments do not adversely affect the rights of the opposing parties and are n....
Amendments to grounds of appeal that seek to change the character of the case cannot be permitted at advanced stages of litigation, particularly when earlier opportunities to introduce such arguments....
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.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their case; decisions made in haste without hearing can lead to prejudice.
Authorities must provide adequate opportunity for parties to present their arguments; haste in decision-making without hearing parties is impermissible.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must adhere to remand orders and consider all relevant records and admissions before making decisions regarding co-tenancy rights.
The court held that challenges to orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act after a significant delay are not permissible, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
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
