IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Suresh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up And 13 Others – Respondent
WRIT - B No. – 3894, 3336 of 2024
Decided on : 02-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 6, Mr. Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.7 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in Writ-B No.3894 of 2024.
2. Heard Mr. Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in Writ-B No.3336 of 2024.
3. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot of Khata Nos.73 & 74 situated in Village- Chakdaud, Tahsil- Sahjanwa, District- Gorakhpur. Against the the basic year entry of plot in question one objection was filed by Raj Kumari and Raj Kishori under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") in respect to khata no.74 for expunging the name of Parasuram, Lalu & Chokat, the predecessor in interest of Suresh Singh. Another objection was filed by Parasuram, Lalu & Chokat for expunging the name of Raj Kumari and Raj Kishori daughters of Nirmal Singh in respect to khata no.73. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.12.2003 allowed the objection filed by Raj Kumari and Raj Kishori with respect to khata no.74. Against the order dated 24.12.2003 heirs of Parasuram, Lalu & Chokat filed a time barred restoration application on 23.10.2007 before the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed vide order dated 19.1.2011. In respect to khata no.73, Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.6.1990 allowed the objection filed by Parasuram, Lal & Chokat, accordingly, Raj Kumari & Raj Kishori filed restoration application on 10.9.1990 for recalling the order dated 28.6.1990. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.3.1991 allowed the application and set aside the order dated 28.6.1990. Against the order dated 20.3.1991 passed by the Consolidation Officer, a time barred appeal was filed by legal heir of Lalu & Chokat, namely, Suresh Singh which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 7.3.2005. Suresh Singh and others filed a revision under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act against the order dated 20.3.1991 and 7.3.2005. The aforementioned revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.3.2008. Correction application filed on behalf of Raj Kumari & Raj Kishori in respect to revisional order dated 17.3.2008 was allowed on 4.6.2008 making necessary correction in the order dated 17.3.2008. Against the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Suresh Singh and Others filed a Writ-B No.36480 of 2008. The aforementioned Writ- B No.36480 of 2008 was heard finally by this Court and vide order dated 4.9.2014 the writ petition was allowed setting aside the order dated 4.6.2008 and matter was sent back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the objections of Suresh and Others as well as objection / cross objection filed by other parties in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dated 4.9.2014 passed by this Court, the proceeding was started before the Consolidation Officer. In the aforementioned proceeding, an impleadment application dated 3.1.2018 was filed on behalf of Birendra Yadav and 11 others to implead them in the proceeding as plot in question has been purchased by them on the basis of registered sale deed dated 11.2.2002 & 21.4.2003. The aforementioned impleadment application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.2.2018 and fixed the proceeding for evidence of the parties. Consolidation Officer heard the objections on merit and dismissed the objection vide order dated 11.1.2019 filed by Suresh Singh and others with respect to khata no.73 maintaining the basic year entry of the khata no.73. Against the order dated 11.1.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by Suresh Singh before the Settlement Officer of Consolida
Jayaram Mudaliar Vs. Ayyaswami And Ors reported in
T.G. Ashok Kumar Vs. Govindammal & Anr reported in
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr Vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr reported in
Withdrawal applications in pending revisions must be substantiated by legal grounds; the validity of sale deeds takes precedence in ownership disputes.
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....
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 has jurisdiction to restore revisions for adjudication; adherence to procedural fairness and inclusion of all parties is mandated under the U.P. Consolidation of ....
The court affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.
The court emphasized that rival claims based on wills must be adjudicated on merit, and technical dismissals should not prevent fair hearings.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide revisions based on existing evidence and should not remand cases unnecessarily.
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.