Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Azimullah – Appellant
Versus
Dost Mohammad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and objections. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. final considerations on remanding the case and conclusion (Para 12 , 27) |
| 3. arguments regarding jurisdiction and findings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's reasoning on the deputy director's decisions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Shri O.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anand Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present case is arising out of two objections filed by Alibas, Dost Mohammad, Neur, Rasool sons of Idu and Smt. Dukhni, daughter of Bullah @ Billar under Section 9 -A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, of 1953”) in regard to Khata No.142 of Village- Kanchanpur, District-Deoria.
3. First set of objection filed by 4 brothers was based on a claim of co-tenancy being on ancestral property, whereas second set of claim was based on sole tenancy.
4. The Consolidation Officer, Deoria as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected both objections vide orde
The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot overturn prior adjudications or consent decrees without clear evidence of error or perversity in the original findings.
Dismissal of prior suit for maintainability does not determine current rights, and failure to consider evidence results in perverse findings necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
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 court emphasized the necessity of establishing evidence for claims of co-tenancy and inheritance, ruling that the Deputy Director's findings lacked sufficient support.
The court mandated strict compliance with prior judicial orders by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, ensuring that adjustments to chak holdings do not violate past rulings.
Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
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
