Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Manjul – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent-Gram Panchayat, Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.8 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Ganga Dhar son of Banshi Dhar filed a suit under Section 229 -B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 claiming bhoomidhari right over the plot No. 345 area 1.332 hectare and plot No. 826 area 0.006 hectare situated in Village Sithauli Pargana Islamnagar Tehsil Bisuali District Badaun. The aforementioned suit was decreed vide judgement and decree dated 9.9.1982. On the basis of aforementioned decree, Ganga Dhar was recorded as bhoomidhar of the plots in question in the revenue records. The appeal filed by State against the aforementioned judgement and decree was allowed vide judgement dated 19.4.1983 setting aside the judgement and decree dated 9.9.1982 and the suit was accordingly dismissed. The second appeal filed by Ganga Dhar was ultimately dismissed as abated in view of the provisions contained
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.
Long-standing entries cannot be altered without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, reinforcing the principle of natural justice.
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 principles of natural justice require that recorded tenure holders must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their names are expunged from revenue records.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded jurisdiction by not considering the limitation and locus standi of the respondents in appeals under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Objections to consolidation proceedings must be filed within statutory timelines; orders made by consolidation authorities are upheld unless shown to be illegal or lacking jurisdiction.
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
