Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai
Ajeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Vinod Kumar Upadhyay holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Mr. Ajai Kumar Baranwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plots of khata no.54 situated in Village- Ahamadnagar alias Mohammadi, Tehsil-Suar, District - Rampur as mentioned in the order of the consolidation authorities. The names of Harmel Singh, Jageer Singh, sons of Santok Singh (respondent no. 7 & 8); Ajeet Singh, Kartar Singh, sons of Ajaib Singh (petitioners nos.2 and 3); Ajeet Singh, son of Sadho Singh (petitioner no.1), Bheem Singh, son of Ramnath Singh (respondent no.9) Bhagwandas, son of Jawaharlal (respondent no.5) were recorded over the aforementioned plots in the basic year of the consolidation operation. Against the basic year entry of the aforementioned plots, an objection under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P.C.H. Act') was filed by Amar Singh and Jiwan Singh, sons of S
Title disputes must adhere to procedural norms; failure to substantiate evidence can lead to dismissal of claims.
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 upheld the necessity of procedural fairness in consolidation proceedings, emphasizing that all parties must be afforded the opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
Adverse possession claims are not applicable against gaon sabha properties, and the denial of such claims must be based on substantiated findings by consolidation authorities.
The finality of earlier orders under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be respected, and due process must be followed in land record matters.
The court affirmed the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares based on the sale deed, rejecting reliance on abated proceedings in title disputes.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Failure to provide a hearing and frame issues as required by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act renders the adjudication void.
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
