Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ramashray – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
What is the importance of proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes? What are the rights of tenure holders regarding chak allotment on original plots? How to ensure procedural fairness in revisional proceedings concerning land consolidation?
Key Points: - The court emphasized that tenure holders must be allocated chaks on original plots [judgement_subject]. - Procedural fairness requires a proper hearing and substitution of deceased parties in consolidation disputes [judgement_subject]. - The petitioner challenged a revisional order that disturbed chak allocation without proper substitution of heirs or a hearing [judgement_act_referred]. - The principle that tenure holders should be allotted chaks on their original plots and that any disturbance in allotment after an extended period without proper opportunity or hearing is unjust and improper was stressed [judgement_act_referred]. - The revisional order was found to be unjust due to the failure to properly afford a hearing and the lack of legitimate replacement of deceased parties [Facts of the case]. - The court ruled that the order made by the Deputy Director was invalid as it disturbed a long-standing and just allocation of land without sufficient grounds or considerations of justice and fairness in process [Ratio Decidendi]. - The petitioner was a chak holder whose chak allocation was altered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation 16 years after the establishment of prior allotments [Facts of the case]. - The revision was challenged due to the lack of legal substitution for deceased parties and denial of due process [Facts of the case]. - The court upheld the prior settlement order [Facts of the case]. - The writ petition was allowed, the revisional order was set aside, and the prior allotment was maintained [Result]. - The Deputy Director of Consolidation disturbed the petitioner's chak by taking out plots and allotting them to respondent No. 5, after the revision remained pending for about 16 years during which several parties expired without substitution (!) . - The Settlement Officer of Consolidation had allotted chaks to the petitioner and respondent No. 5 in 2008, which remained in operation for about 16 years (!) . - The Deputy Director of Consolidation disturbed the petitioner's chak without affording a proper opportunity of hearing, which is an essential criterion for deciding a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act (!) . - The court found that changing an allotment made about 16 years prior by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after such a long period was not in the interest of justice (!) (!) . - The impugned revisional order was set aside, and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was maintained (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Triveni Shanker, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Garima Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.4/ Gram Panchayat.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is chak holder no.227-ba of the plots situated in Village-Shahpur, Pargana-Khareed, Tehsil- Bansdeh, District-Ballia. Original holding of the petitioner are plot No.16/2 area 0.170 hectare, 169 area 0.125 hectare, 233/1 area 0.261 hectare, 233/2 area 0.010 hectare, 286 area 0.134 hectare, 289 area 0.198 hectare total 6 plots area 0.898 hectare as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition. Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the U.P.C.H. Act) divided share of Ram Suresh as 1/4, Ramashray, 1/4, Shiv Shankar 1/4, Rajaram 1/4. Petitioner was proposed two chaks by Assistant Consolidation Officer. First chak was proposed to petitioner on plot No.288 M, 289 M and second chak was pr
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 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.
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 Deputy Director of Consolidation must consider comparative hardship when exercising revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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.
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 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 roadside plots under consolidation laws must reflect the shares of each holder without illegality in the decision-making process.
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.
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
