IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ajay Kumar Singhal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Brajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Vijay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Village Girdawa Shahanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Nazibabad, District Bijnor was notified under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P. C.H. Act”) on 16.8.1992. The petitioner is chak holder no.63 and original holding of the petitioner is 95/1, etc. (total area .388 hect.). The petitioner was proposed chak on plot no. 258, area .293 hect. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 are chak holder no.466. The original holding of respondent nos. 4 & 5 are plot no.258, etc., area 3.688 hect. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 were allotted single chak on plot no.258, etc., area 3.650 etc. A time-barred objection under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was filed by respondent nos. 4 & 5 for declaring the plot no.258 as chak out. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.5.2010 excluded the plot no.258, area 3.650 hect. from consolidation scheme. Against the order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Co
The court ruled that time-barred objections cannot disturb previously established rights in consolidation proceedings, reinforcing the principle of finality in administrative decisions.
The court emphasized that tenure holders must be allocated chaks on original plots, and procedural fairness requires proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes.
The court upheld the legality of Chak allotment under the U.P.C.H. Act, affirming adherence to principles of rectangulation and consideration of irrigation sources.
A chak holder's entitlement can only be altered where existing agricultural rights and irrigation sources are preserved, underscoring the importance of statutory compliance in land allocation.
The court mandated reconsideration of land allotment claims, emphasizing the necessity of a fair hearing for all affected parties under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court established that cancellation of earlier consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act allows for new proceedings and does not accord finality to prior adjudications between the parties.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
The court affirmed that orders of the Consolidation Officer are not subject to challenge under Article 226, and applications under Rule 109-A are not maintainable when related appeals are pending.
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.
Roadside land either to be excluded from consolidation operation or to be included in the chak of that chak holder who held it as original.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.