Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Kailash – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sitapur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Saurabh Lavania, J.)
1. Heard Shri Ram Asarey Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/opposite party No.1 and perused the record.
2. Issuance of notice to opposite party No.2 is hereby dispensed with liberty to the opposite party No.2 to file an appropriate recall application of this order, if aggrieved by this order. It is for the following reason (s) :-
(a) without entering into the merits of the case, in the light of settled principle related to power of Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short "D.D.C.") under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), this Court is remanding the matter to D.D.C. for deciding the same on merits;
(b) issuance of notice would unnecessary delay the proceedings in issue; and
(c) the settled principle related to power of D.D.C. under Section 48 of the Act of 1953 could not be refuted by the present opposite parties.
3. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order passed by the opposite Party No.1 dated 14.02.2025 in Re
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to examine and decide cases on merits without unnecessary remand, emphasizing the need for expedient resolution of disputes.
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 jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must decide on merits when sufficient evidence is available, and parties must be afforded a fair hearing before any decision.
The revisional authority must not assume fact-finding roles beyond their jurisdiction; adequate evidence and adherence to legal standards are necessary for adverse possession claims.
The main legal point established is that revisions under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard, and the authority m....
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
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
