Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
D.S. SINHA, S.K. DHAON, JJ.
Hari Ram - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Pet. No. Nil of 1987.
Decided On : 14-11-1987
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner apprehend that the Deputy Director of Consolidation may exercise the power under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) in view of the opinion expressed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in the order dated 8-10-1987, a true copy whereof is annexure 3 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Consolidation will have no jurisdiction to exercise any power under Section 48 (3) of the Act as a Notification under Section 52 of the Act had been issued on 13th February, 1982. He has, therefore, prayed that this Court may intervene and issue a writ in the nature of prohibition to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to forebear from exercising any jurisdiction.
2. We find that on 29th October, 1987 an objection was preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The position of law is well settled. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 48 (3) of the Act if a de-notification has already taken place under Section 52 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, will first record a finding as to whether a Notification under Section 52 of the Act had, in fact, been issued on 13th February 1982. If he finds that such a notification exists and if he also finds that the land which is the subject matter of dispute is covered by the said Notification, he shall desist from exercising any power under Section 48 (3) of the Act. With his direction the petition is disposed of finally.
3. A copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of necessary charges within twenty-four hours.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
