Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Laxmi – Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shriprakash Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. O.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the private respondents and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to khata no. 720/40, 722/92, 746/40, 755/24 situated in Village Rampur Bagha, Tappa Parwar Par, Pargana Sidhuva Jobna, Tehsil Hata, District Deoria which were recorded in the basic year of the consolidation operation in the name of petitioner/ Laxmi and respondent no.10/ Dhoopai son of Jai as sirdari plots. Khata no. 267 was recorded in the name of respondent no.11/ Kali and others, khata no. 93 was recorded in the name of respondent no.8, Feku son of Rajmani. Against the basic year entry of the consolidation operation, obection under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.8, Feku son of Rajmani with the prayer that 92 dismil area should be added in his khata. Objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act were also filed by petitioner/ Laxmi as well as respondent no.11/ Kali. A compromise was alleged to take pla
The Board of Revenue's judgment setting aside trial court findings was arbitrary, lacking proper legal basis and factual consideration, thus the trial court's decree was affirmed.
The order under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act does not operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings under Section 9A(2), and the cause of action and party actions are crucial in determining the....
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
The court affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
A co-sharer in ancestral property retains their rights despite not participating in consolidation proceedings, and their claims cannot be dismissed solely based on procedural bars without a substanti....
The principles of natural justice require that a recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before their rights to land are altered or cancelled.
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
