Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Chandra Pal – Appellant
Versus
Consolidation Officer Bulandshahr – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case that Khata No. 242 situated in Village Baroda was recorded in the name of Chandi Lal, Bhoop Singh, Sohan Lal, Ratan Lal, Chandrapal Sons of Ganga Sahai, Mohan Lal son of Sukha. The family pedigree, which is admitted to both parties is as under:-
In C.H. Form 5 share of every person in respect to Khata No. 242 was mentioned as 1/6 each. Several set of objection under Section 9 A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act were filed with respect to share in Khata No. 242. Ist set of objection was filed by Mohan Lal (father of respondent no. 4,5 & 6) claiming 1/2 share as plot in question was ancestral & acquired by common ancester Meru. IInd set of objection was filed by Chandi Lal (respondent no. 7) stating the plot in dispute was acquired by his father Ganga Sahai as such he is entitled to 1/5 share and name of Mohan Lal is liable to be expunged. IIIrd set of objection was filed by Chandrapal (Petitioner) stating that Bhoop Singh had executed a sale deed in his
The Revisional Court under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can review evidence and findings from lower authorities, affirming its jurisdiction to determine land ownership dispute....
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
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 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.
Compromise reached in consolidation matters prevails unless compelling evidence of illegality or misjudgment is presented; delayed appeals undermine procedural integrity.
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 revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the share of co-tenancy in ancestral property, which was affirmed by the appellate court.
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 court affirmed the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares based on the sale deed, rejecting reliance on abated proceedings in title disputes.
Tenure Land - Once a dispute was recorded by Assistant Consolidation Officer and on objection being filed same was referred to Consolidation Officer, it is incumbent to Consolidation Officer to decid....
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
