Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ram Jiyawan – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
2. Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Village Tendua Pargana Badhahar Tehsil Ghorawal District Sonbhadra came under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act by way of notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. During consolidation proceeding, an order dated 5.9.2003 was passed by Consolidation Officer deciding the inter-se dispute between petitioners and respondent no.4. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 5.9.2003, an appeal was filed before Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed vide order dated 29.6.2006. Contesting respondent no.4 filed a revision under Section 4 8 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the appellate order dated 29.6.2006 which has been registered as revision No. 32/ 138 of 2007. During pendency of the aforementioned revision, an order dated 17.11.2006 was passed by District Magistrate
The court established that cancellation of earlier consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act allows for new proceedings and does not accord finality to prior adjudications between the parties.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court upheld the Consolidation Commissioner's order, affirming that the provisions of Rule 17 of the U.P. C.H. Rules are guidelines, not mandatory, allowing for subjective discretion in consolida....
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 court established that excessive delay in filing title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner was aware of the proceedings.
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.
The court ruled that time-barred objections cannot disturb previously established rights in consolidation proceedings, reinforcing the principle of finality in administrative decisions.
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
