Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Bharat Singh – Appellant
Versus
A.D.C. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substitution application for legal heirs noted. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. delay not adequately explained by respondent. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. restoration of writ petition granted. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court considerations on granting relief. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. remand for adequate hearing and notice. (Para 10) |
| 6. status quo to be maintained until resolution. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. comparative hardship evaluated for decisions. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 78188 of 2016 and Civil Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No.78189 of 2016
1. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh and Mr. Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S.N. Tiwari learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2.The instant restoration application along with delay condonation application have been filed to recall the order dated 19.11.2014 dismissing the writ petition as infructuous.
3. Mr. M.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that delay has not been properly explained, as such the restoration application is liable to be rejected as time barred. He furt
The comparative hardship of the parties must be considered in chak allotment disputes, and a writ should not be dismissed as infructuous when substantive rights are at stake.
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 validity of a restoration application allowed after 15 years, emphasizing the importance of providing parties an opportunity to present their case in consolidation proceedings.
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 Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship of both parties when exercising jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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....
Consolidation authorities must adhere to statutory provisions when allotting chaks, ensuring tenure holders receive compact areas near their largest holdings.
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 revisional authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can alter allotments if it considers the comparative hardship of all tenure holders, ensuring a just exercise of jurisdiction.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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
