Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Devendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. – Respondent
ORDER :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Order on Substitution Application
1. Heard.
2. Substitution application is allowed at the risk of petitioner.
3. Necessary substitution be carried out during course of day.
Order on Writ
1. Heard Sri D.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This Court has passed following orders on 30.01.2009 and 30.10.2014 :-
“Four weeks for C.A.
Two weeks for R.A.
List.
Status quo until further orders.
30.01.09”
xxxxxxx
“Issue of bar of Section 49 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 arising in the writ petition has been referred for decision of the larger Bench by the order dated 29.10.2013 in Writ B No. 52717 of 2013 ( Ram Briksha and another vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others).
Connect this writ petition with the aforesaid writ petition.
30.10.2014”
3. There is a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ram Briksha and another vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation , 2017 SCC Online All 4417, which is placed on record that said reference is being decided in following manner :-
“Issue No. I
The court ruled that claims of joint ownership must be substantiated with evidence, and the applicability of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars civil court jurisdiction in cons....
Preliminary issues involving mixed questions of law and fact must be decided alongside all issues, not in isolation, as per established legal principles.
The Revisional Authority must adequately consider all grounds in disputes regarding land possession under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court affirmed the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares based on the sale deed, rejecting reliance on abated proceedings in title disputes.
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
The principle of res judicata applies at every stage of proceedings, and once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of the proceeding.
A suit under Section 229 B is not maintainable once land rights are finalized during consolidation, enforcing the jurisdictional bar under Section 49 of the relevant Act.
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act for matters related to land subject to consolidation, unless fraud is proven, which was not established in this case.
Unregistered Wills granting limited interests do not negate partition rights unless claims about the nature of interests are timely raised during consolidation proceedings, reinforcing exclusive juri....
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
