Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL
Irshad Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Mohd Ahmad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Addl. District Magistrate (Revenue and Finance) Udham Singh Nagar in Case No. 52/01 of 2017, Mohd. Ahmad and Anr. Vs. Irshad Hussain and Ors.
2. Brief facts, of the case, are that the father of the petitioner and proforma respondent no. 3 to 5 herein Mr. Abdul Hameed and the father of respondent no. 1 and 2, Mr. Nisar Ahmad were brother and have equal share over the property in question, i.e, land situated at Village Sarkadi, Tehsil Bazpur, District U.S. Nagar, i.e., gata no. 114 min area 0.221 hectares and gata no. 114 min area 0.354 hectares total area 0.575 hectares. Subsequently, Mr. Abdul Hameed and Mr. Nisar Ahmad during their lifetime executed their “will” on 20.03.1991 and 29.08.1994 and bequeathed the property in question in favour of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 and since then they are in continuous possession over the property in question.
Subsequently, proceeding under Section 6 (A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was initiated on the will basis of the executed by Late Nisar Ahmad on 29.08.1994 and
Liberal approach to delay condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act prioritizes substantial justice over technicalities absent gross negligence or mala fides; mere condonation causes no serious p....
Point of Law : It is well settled proposition of law that existence of sufficient cause is sine quo non, for condonation of delay. In absence of being any finding that cause shown is sufficient delay....
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
Inordinate delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained; failure to do so results in dismissal of the petition.
The court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technicalities in delay condonation, requiring sufficient cause to be shown for delays in appeals.
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....
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
