Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Sohan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Krishna Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vidya Dhar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.339 and respondent No.5 is chak holder No.299. Assistant Consolidation Officer has proposed chak two chaks to the petitioner. First chak on plot No.108m, 111m, 113M and second chak on plot No.133M, 164M and 166M. Against the proposal of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, chak objection was filed by petitioner as well as respondent No.5 and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.09.2019/ 17.03.2020 decided the chak objections Consolidation Officer vide order dated 16.09.2019 alloted chak to respondent No.5 on plot No.133 and 163 taking out the plot No.191 and 192. Against the order of consolidation Officer dated 16.09.2019 chak appeal was filed by respondent No.5 under Section 21 (2) of U.P
A chak holder's entitlement can only be altered where existing agricultural rights and irrigation sources are preserved, underscoring the importance of statutory compliance in land allocation.
The court upheld the adjustment of chak allotment based on original tenure rights and comparative hardship, affirming the authority's jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court emphasized that tenure holders must be allocated chaks on original plots, and procedural fairness requires proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes.
The court upheld the legality of Chak allotment under the U.P.C.H. Act, affirming adherence to principles of rectangulation and consideration of irrigation sources.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship of both parties when exercising jurisdiction under Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The allotment of roadside plots under consolidation laws must reflect the shares of each holder without illegality in the decision-making process.
The court mandated reconsideration of land allotment claims, emphasizing the necessity of a fair hearing for all affected parties under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The allotment of chak under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must adhere to the legal provisions regarding equitable distribution among co-sharers, as confirmed in the case.
The revisional authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can alter allotments if it considers the comparative hardship of all tenure holders, ensuring a just exercise of jurisdiction.
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
