Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Devendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of the writ petition process (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. interpretation of section 49 of u.p. consolidation of holdings act (Para 3) |
| 3. suits can proceed despite initial dismissal based on jurisdiction (Para 4) |
| 4. court's decision to set aside prior order and remand (Para 5) |
| 5. legal directive for expedited case resolution (Para 6) |
| 6. conclusion of the writ petition (Para 7) |
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 Brik
Peaceful co-habitation among co-sharers does not necessitate objections under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, preserving their property rights under the Constitution.
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.
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
