Rajdev v. D.D.C.and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Dispute over land consolidation under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Court held Revisional Authority's conclusion upholding basic year entry was incorrect when both parties failed to prove their claim. Petition partly allowed and matter remitted.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order interfered only as to conclusion; matter remitted to Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh order within three months.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:230676 Reserved -: 29/11/2023 Delivered -: 06/12/2023
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 8181 of 1978
Petitioner :- Rajdev Respondent :- D.D.C.And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.N. Sharma,R. P. Singh Parihar,Rajesh Shankar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Dharmendra Dhar Dubey
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
- This case is arising out of a proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short “Act, 1953”) in respect of a dispute regarding plot no. 941, khata no. 110 situated in village Agraha, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur.
- It is not in dispute that in basic year, name of Ram Chandra s/o Ajudhia i.e. original respondent no.4 was recorded. The original petitioner before this Court had filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 claiming to be co-sharer of land in dispute to extent of 1/3. Another objection was filed by one Ratipal Singh and others, claiming to be owners of trees standing on land in dispute.
- The Consolidation Officer, after considering the evidence, oral as well as documentary, on 05.07.1973 rejected the objections submitted by petitioners. The claim of Ratipal (respondent no.5) in regard to ownership of trees was rejected since no evidence was found. The Consolidation Officer has framed following four issues and relevant findings thereof are mentioned below -:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Revisional Authority correctly upheld the basic year entry when both parties failed to prove their case?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajdev
- respondent
D.D.C. And Others
Coram
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIB/8181/1978
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court