Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Wahid – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Stamp Reporter has reported laches of 2785 days in filing the instant petition which has been sufficiently explained in paragraph Nos. 26 to 32 of the instant writ petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.
4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted patta of the disputed plot situated in Village- Mustafapur-I, Pargana and Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad in the year 1975 by the Land Management Committee and the patta was approved by the then Sub Divisional Magistrate. On the basis of the patta executed in favour of petitioner, the petitioner was recorded over the plot in question. The Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 herein after referred as U.P.C.H. Act has expunged the petitioner's entry under the order dated 19.10.2016 hence this writ petition fo
Long-standing entries cannot be altered without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, reinforcing the principle of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice require that a recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before their rights to land are altered or cancelled.
Failure to provide a hearing and frame issues as required by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act renders the adjudication void.
The failure to provide an opportunity to lead evidence in title disputes under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act violates principles of natural justice, allowing for judicial review under Articl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice and fair play must be adhered to, and parties must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their rights....
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.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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
