Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Jagbhan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director of Consolidation – Respondent
UDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Mr. Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to khata no.602, plot no.211/13, situated in village Majhgawan, Pargana and Tehsil Rath, District Hamirpur. In the basic year of the consolidation operation, the aforementioned plot was recorded in the name of the petitioners under Shreni-IV. Against the basic year entry of the plot in question, 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 the petitioners with the prayer that petitioners should be recorded as Sirdar in place of Shreni-IV. The aforementioned objection filed by the petitioners, was registered as Case No.5767 before the Consolidation Officer. The Gaon Sabha filed his reply, denying the case of the petitioners. The petitioners adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. One issue was framed before the Consolidation Officer as to whether the petitioners/objectors is
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.
Failure to provide a hearing and frame issues as required by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act renders the adjudication void.
Title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be filed within a reasonable time; excessive delays without sufficient cause render such objections inadmissible.
The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the share of co-tenancy in ancestral property, which was affirmed by the appellate court.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
Title disputes must adhere to procedural norms; failure to substantiate evidence can lead to dismissal of claims.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
The civil court's decree in an injunction suit cannot be enforced under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, affirming the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities.
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
