Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Section 9 in U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 July, 2011
Revision of the petitioner was clubbed with the Revision No.748 (Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.) and both the revisions were decided by common order dated 29.05.2017. Revision filed on behalf of Rajendra (Revision No. 748) has been dismissed, however, revision filed on behalf of the present petitioner (Revision No. 398) has been allowed whereby exchange value of Plot No. 1018/1 has been reduced from Rs.70/- paise to Rs.20/- paise and petitioner has been allotted chak over Plot No. 426 etc.
Basdev vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 29 August, 2023
7. In my considered opinion, it would not be justifiable to consider the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner at this juncture qua nature of the plot in question as to whether it was an 'Aasami' land under Class-3 entry or as a pond. Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 17.02.2023, has simply referred the report submitted by the Consolidation Officer qua plot no.428 and restored the proceeding of revision on its original number to examine the validity and genuineness of the entry relating to plot no.428 which has been said to be recorded in 1370 Fasli being a 'pond'. Submission raised on behalf of the petitioner may be a matter of concern, however, same can more appropriately be redressed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after going through the land revenue record. He has not returned any categorical finding with respect to the nature of the plot in question rather reopened the revisional proceeding to examine the correctness of the report submitted by the Consolidation Officer. Nothing has been decided finally with respect to the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the property in question. He has still an opportunity to defend his case and raise all plea before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Basdev v. State of U.P. and 05 others, Neutral Citation No. 2023 : AHC : 173700, decided on August 29, 2023 which is not much helpful to the petitioner inasmuch as same is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Smriti Madan Kansagra vs Perry Kansagra on 28 October, 2020
"29. The argument that Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken cognizance of application at very belated stage i.e. after more than 2 decades, may be relevant but since there is per se presence of element of 'fraud on statute' and that Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted a public land to petitioners without any 'necessity' or 'expediency' and without any alternative land being earmarked for said public purpose ('pasture land'), therefore, as it is well settled that a 'fraud' which also includes a 'fraud on statute', if detected, can be considered even at any later stage. Legal principle that 'fraud vitiates every solemn act' which also amounts to an abuse of the process, and the court or concerned Authority has inherent power to set aside, an order obtained by fraud practised upon it or a statute also and for that few paragraphs of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Smriti Madan Kansagra vs. Perry Kansagra, 2021 SCC Online SC 909, would be relevant and being quoted below :-
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajendra Singh & Ors on 14 March, 2000
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581, this Court observed:-
Smt. Jaiwati vs State Of U.P. on 21 September, 2023
3. Facts culled out from the records are that objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer and same has been affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Having been aggrieved, petitioner has preferred revision being Revision No. 398 (Smt. Jaiwati v. State of U.P.).
1