Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK
Nasima – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for contesting respondent no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel for state respondents no.1 & 2.
2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeds to decide the instant writ petition finally, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties who are present in the Court, without calling for their respective affidavits.
3. The petitioners have shown their grievance against the remand order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') whereby original proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act has been remitted before the Consolidation Officer, Saharanpur to decide the right, title and interest of the parties de novo over the property in question.
4. Record evince that respondent no.3 is claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of lease deed dated 01.10.1983 which has been approved by the authority concerned on 15.04.1984. On the advent of consolidation operation, the petitioners have filed an objection for correction of are
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must exercise jurisdiction to decide on matters without unnecessary remand when evidence is available, emphasizing efficiency in litigation.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must decide on merits when sufficient evidence is available, and parties must be afforded a fair hearing before any decision.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide appeals on their merits rather than remanding to subordinate authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review under Sectio....
The court clarified that the finality of orders under Section 9-B(3) of the U.P.C.H. Act is subject to exceptions, allowing for revisions under Section 48.
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.
Successive orders of remand in consolidation proceedings are impermissible; authorities must expedite resolution of long-pending disputes.
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
