Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Sambhu Prasad Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Ayodhya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Hemant Tripathi, Advocate and Mr. Hari Om Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record
2. Heard Mr. R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hemant Tripathi, and Mr. Hari Om Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 3, Mr. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4/Gaon Sabha and Mr. Rakesh D. Kumar, Advocate, who appeared for Mr. Ambikesh Singh, Advocate and Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate, who filed the caveat for respondent no.2/Chandra Prakash Singh.
3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.
4. By means of the present petition the petitioner has sought the following main relief :-
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by Opposite Party No. 1 (Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in Revision No. 3024/202554042300000106, Chandra Prakash Singh vs. Sambhu Prasad & Others, Village Sarethi, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District
The Assistant Consolidation Officer cannot create new rights in land through compromise; only existing statutory rights can be recognized under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
A compromise regarding property transfer is invalid if procured through fraud and lacks necessary documentation and registration.
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 ruled that claims of joint ownership must be substantiated with evidence, and the applicability of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars civil court jurisdiction in cons....
Legal proceedings initiated after the issuance of consolidation notifications are invalid under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as outlined in Section 5(2), and proper filing o....
The court affirmed that the rights of co-tenants may be limited by previous compromises, reinforcing the principle that parties must substantiate claims against duly recorded documents.
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
