Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
ALOK MATHUR
Jitendra Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
Upsanchalak Chakbandi Sultanpur Camp Lucknow – Respondent
Question 1? How to condone delay in filing appeals when fraud caused the delay? Question 2? What is the consequence of obtaining a mutation/order through fraud on consolidation proceedings? Question 3? What are the rights of joint ownership where land was purchased jointly but mutation was recorded in one name?
Key Points: - The judgment holds that orders obtained through fraud are nullities and must be set aside; delay due to fraud can be condoned under Section 17 of the Limitation Act. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Fraudulent mutation in consolidation proceedings can be challenged, and Section 17 (discovery of fraud) applies to start the limitation anew; the court quashed orders obtained by fraud. (!) (!) (!) (!) - When land was purchased jointly but recorded in one name via fraud, the land should vest jointly in the joint owners and not be extinguished by consolidation orders. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mathur, J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Upendra Nath Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh for the private respondents.
2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim with regard to the property situated at Khata no.26 in village Adharkhera, Parghana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow, from Jagan, which was purchased jointly by his mother, Smt Kulwanta Devi, and Lalta Singh, has assailed the orders dated 02/03/1960 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, order dated 11/03/2015 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and order dated 16/02/2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
3. According to the petitioners, the disputed land was purchased vide a registered sale deed on 19/03/1959 by Sri Kamta Singh, the father of the petitioner, who paid the consideration for the purchase of the said land, which was registered in the name of Smt. Kulwanta Devi, his wife, and Lalta Singh, his brother. Lalta Singh moved an application for mutation based on the aforesaid Sale dated 19/03/19
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
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....
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.
The suit for cancellation of a sale-deed was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a Joint Hindu Family or that the propert....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Consolidation Officer's jurisdiction is limited to preventing fragmentation and consolidating land holdings of tenure holders, and Section....
The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act allows authorities to adjudicate on land rights even when a wrong provision is cited, as long as they possess the necessary 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
