Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Rajeshwari Devi – Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director Of Consolidation Shahjahanpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 4 and Sri Hasan Abbas, learned Standing Counsel for the State in Writ B No.47925 of 2014.
Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 5 and Sri Hasan Abbas, learned Standing Counsel for the State in Writ B No.8596 of 2015.
2. Since Common issues are involved in both the writ petitions hence both the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and writ petition No.47925 of 2014 shall be treated as a leading petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Village-Bhedpur Pergana-Jamaur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Shahjahanpur came under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as "the U.P.C.H. Act"). Statement of principles prepared under Section 8 (A) of the U.P. C.H. Act was published in the year 20
Objections to consolidation proceedings must be filed within statutory timelines; orders made by consolidation authorities are upheld unless shown to be illegal or lacking jurisdiction.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
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.
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 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 has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
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 ....
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
