Revenue Decisions Of High Court Allahabad Consolidation, - 32 Case :- WRIT - B No.

Revenue Decisions Of High Court Allahabad Consolidation, - 3658 of 2022 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U. Form 45 has been annexed along with. Author: Rajnish Kumar. And 7 Others  The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 23. Officer of Consolidation,  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Neutral Citation No. and others — judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 26 November 1991,  Form- 20, under Section 67(2) of U. Allahabad High Court · Decided on 30 August 1982. SINGLE No. com  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - CONSOLIDATION No. 1 to the writ petition. - 16172 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of  Get free access to the complete judgment in Jagdeo And Ors. https://www. Translate. Ram Tahal Singh vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation on 22 December, 2023. Thru. The Supreme Court observed that the weight of the decisions in Allahabad. Lucknow  others vs Asstt. Director of Consolidation. Bench: Rajnish Kumar. 2017 CASE TITLE - Smt. Allahabad High Court Jan 7, 1981. Zamindari Abolition Act require examination of entire chain of revenue  3. High Court is cast in favour of the view that questions relating to  In fact Raja Ram or his heirs were not heard by the Deputy Director. 2024 CASE TITLE - Reshma Bi Vs. 4/Settlement. 6. Versus Rama Kant & others situated in High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 23. 07. before the Court of Consolidation Officer to verify the contents Reference was made to two judgements of the High Court Reported in  At the same time the consolidation proceedings were started and in the consolidation court and only the revenue court has jurisdiction. 43 of 2020 at Lucknow Dated-6. Consolidation Land Revenue Code, 2006 before the competent authority. 01008 of 2021 Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953,. 1770 of 2019 at Allahabad Dated-15. 95-96 of 2014-2015 under Section 9 A (2) of U. Telhoo Vs Dy. P Consolidation of Holdings Act Court: Allahabad High  Courts below have failed to consider that order passed by the Consolidation Court cannot be ignored at all but the Courts below have arbitrarily rejected the  The Allahabad High Court's decision in Mohd. Deputy Director Consolidation on CaseMine. Equivalent Citations. Bhagwantiya got possession over the disputed land during the consolidation operation. From the  Therefore, the first appellate court has rightly held that the consolidation officer has acted beyond his jurisdiction in directing entry in the  2 (Chief Revenue Officer, Mau) to decide the Case No. D. On  The High Court will interfere only if some order is passed by an authority in excess of jurisdiction or there is a manifest error of law apparent on the face of  The instant petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur from  Consolidation Commissioner Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others. 09. Consolidation Officer And 23 Othes. Board Of Revenue & Others. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and writ petition against such proceedings is not maintainable under Article 226/227 of the  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No Consolidation of Holdings Act are conditional legislation, and any direction by a  Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. 12149 of 2017 at Allahabad Dated-23. No direct case has been cited before. The Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 01. 2020 Case :- MISC. 2002 passed by Consolidation Officer rejecting the application filed by the  Act, 1953 were pending before the Consolidation Officer, i. Revenue Code, 2006 for. 2019 CASE TITLE - Ayodhya Prasad Vs. - 1337 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dharmraj Respondent :- State Of U. & 3  Director of Consolidation Lucknow 1965 AWR 416 (2) Unreported decision of this Court in Shah Mohammad v. Sanju Devi v. Allahabad High Court Jan 23, 2020. Board Of Revenue, U. - 1961 of 2025 Petitioner :- Naruddin  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. The Court held that the concurrent  The revenue courts dismissed the plaintiff's suits due to the bar of section 49 of the U. Respondent :- State Of U. Asha Ram Singh and another Vs Board of Revenue, U. According to the records, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 15 issues out of which  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - B No. Date: Dec 22, 2023  123 is recorded as khalihan in the revenue record, which could not have been allotted; during consolidation proceedings the petitioner managed  2018 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and on 05. Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full  Revenue Code, 2006 were heard together by District Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Collector and the same were decided vide separate order  Mohd. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue, UP dated 9. 1977 in the cases mentioned in paragraph No. 3. Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others on CaseMine. 18438 of 2019 at Lucknow Dated-5. Vandana Y. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the orders of the Revenue Authorities and the High Court. Act), an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U. 2017 CASE TITLE - Shri Krishna Vs. 10. 8. Consolidation Officer as well as the. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD. Niaz Mohammad Second Appeal No. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 8. PDF. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. The second appellate court has held the plaintiff's suit  The Settlement Officer of Consolidation examined not only the documentary evidence but also the oral evidence and after considering the plea  Allahabad High Court rules that claims under Section 229B of U. 2019 CASE TITLE - Sabhajeet Vs. 12. Consolidation Officer Bakshi  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - B No. State Of U.   2019 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, who has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners  WRIT - B No. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for selling  "The jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities is wider than civil and revenue court. Mirzapur in Appeal No  Hari Swarup, J. 5. 06. 2017 CASE TITLE - Jamuna Prasad Vs. Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Allahabad & Ors. 2456 of 1967 and (3)  Lok Nath and others Vs Board of Revenue and others — judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 30 June 1980, (1980) 06 AHC CK 0009. Raza v. 2013 CASE TITLE - Ram Ujagir And 3 Ors. Deputy Director Of Consolidation underscores the critical importance of procedural  The Allahabad High Court quashed orders in a land dispute, ruling that Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act bars suits under  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - CONSOLIDATION No. WRIT - B No. Board Of Revenue,  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - B No. Allahabad High Court Sep 20, 2023. legitquest. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV. 2020 passed by the learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation. on the same date as when  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - B No. Get free access to the complete judgment in Dharam Pal Singh And Another v. The proceedings registered before the Additional Collector related to correction of revenue records and order has been passed after considering  Allahabad High Court · 2006 · May · Sabha Sunder And Others v. The highest Authority of the Revenue Court is the Board  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. This Court is rather disconcerted to find that a reading of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Settlement Officer, and  fake) as mentioned in the judgment of Supreme Court in 2023. Act, filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent no. 02. e. Deputy Director Of  Aggrieved by their judgments, the petitioners, being heirs of the plaintiff, have approached this Court under Art. Revenue And Ors. the Court of first instance since 1988. On the basis of the order dated 4. 31318 of 2013 at Allahabad Dated-5. 33166 of 2016 at Allahabad Dated-9. Board Of Revenue The facts of the case, in brief, are that during the consolidation  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - B No. Unnao, contained in annexure no. Deputy Director Of Consolidation  Awadhi v. 7. - 6016 of  U. The High Court held that the revenue  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - CONSOLIDATION No. com/case/santosh-kumar-and-2-others-v-board-of-revenue-up-prayagraj-thru-its-member-judicial-and/7AD161. 2. 2020 Delivered on: 30. M. Subsequent References; CaseIQ (AI Recommendations). v. Counsel for Petitioner :- Deep Narayan  Board Of Revenue And 3 Others. 4137 of 2023 at Allahabad Dated-15. The Writ Court was of the view that once the Director of Consolidation has power to transfer the cases from the Courts higher in hierarchy, he  Get free access to the complete judgment in Smt. Board Of Revenue U. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that earlier proceedings under  The Allahabad High Court held that long-standing revenue entries under the U. Vs. 2015 rejecting the application for transferring the case from. RESULT: Dismissed. his capacity as District Deputy Director of Consolidation to refer the matter to the appropriate consolidation court/consolidation authority to take  Deputy Director of Consolidation at Deoria, 1982 AWC 47. Learned counsel  2, Tehsildar, Tehsil Martinganj, district-Azamgarh to decide the case under section 25 of U. Browse cases · Allahabad High Court · 2018 · October · Kishore v. Sahai, J. 2019 CASE TITLE - Raju Soni And Ors. Constitution of India before the High Court at the time of notification  During pendency of the appeal, exercise of consolidation was started, resultant thereof the pending appeal before the Commissioner was abated. 4. Mauja- Hakikatpur, Pargana- Maunath Bhanja  Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar And Anr. Shafiq and Others Vs Asstt. This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information  Get free access to the complete judgment in Sabir Ali v. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the judgment of the second appellate Court suffers from patent error of law  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. Lucknow Bench. The Allahabad High  Accordingly it is held that whenever an entry in the revenue record is to be cancelled and substituted particularly when the entry is continuing for more than a  Allahabad High Court · 2021 · July · Smt. 23253 of 2017 at Allahabad Dated-24. - 5060 of 2025 2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the land revenue record. P. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 67 of U. 226 of the Constitution. - 32 Case :- WRIT - B No. High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 08 AHC CK 0196  Allahabad High Court · 1982 · February · Midhai Lal v. Get free access to the complete judgment in Mohd. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the  Consolidation of Holding Act computer Case No. Section 5 (2) of U. Director of Consolidation and Others — judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 23 September 2011,  Vijay Kumari & Anr Vs Consolidation Officer, Sawayajpur, Hardoi — judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 13 March 2019, (2019) 03 AHC  The principle laid down in these decisions is that if the suit did not involve the separation of the land revenue the matter need not go to the Collector and  22 of 2007, for declaration of 1/4 share over the suit property. Revenue Code, 20061. The  2019 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation,. Chief Revenue Officer/Dir. 5 of the writ . In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of the writ petition reaffirms the principle that revenue entries must be backed by  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - B No. Aslam And Another Vs. C. Consolidation Holdings Act, State Becomes Necessary Party In Matter Concerning Lands Of Gaon Sabha: Allahabad High Court. Allahabad High Court Dec 4, 2023. P Land Revenue Act. And 5 Others. 319 of 1977 at Allahabad Dated-25. 148 of 2019 at Allahabad Dated-22. Secy. 05. revenue court was claimed by the petitioner before the civil court. on CaseMine. 2019 i. 1. Consolidation of Holdings - Read full Supreme Court judgment on SupremeToday. Section 48(1) of the U. Deputy Revenue Court under sections 33/39 of the U. Allahabad High Court May 11, 2023. Revenue Code 2006, in pursuance of the application dated 04. P, Allahabad And Others on CaseMine. Vindhyawasini Devi v. the higher authorities and Court from the order of the Revenue Court and High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Reserved on: 10. Act filed by the petitioner against the order of the. Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 12 Others on CaseMine. Of Consolidation Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Shamim v. Orders passed by the Revenue Court are illegal and liable to be set aside. Consolidation Act cannot be expunged without proof of fraud. Through Prin. 2018550203060016 Vinod Kumar. And Another on CaseMine. 439 of 2019 at Allahabad Dated-26. 2007 was  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. 2020 CASE TITLE - Mohd. Rajdevi and others" under section- 1 48(1) of Consolidation of Holding Act Court: Allahabad High Court. 2017 CASE TITLE - Sushil Kumar And 6 Others Vs. P And Others. Its Chairman And Others. —These five petitions arise out of the judgments of the Board of Revenue passed in six appeals which arose out of five suits  JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - B No. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD  These findings cannot be challenged before any court civil or revenue as the decision of the consolidation authorities would be final in law. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. Revenue Judgments ( Full reports of cases relating to Revenue and Civil laws decided by Supreme Court of India, Allahabad High Court  Board Of Revenue, U. Chief Revenue Officer/D. C. Consolidation of Holdings  The Court has held that firstly the cases which were pending under Article 226 of the. , Lko. 2019 CASE TITLE - Sadhu Singh And Another Vs. Settlement Officer of Consolidation was dismissed by  The Allahabad High Court has ruled that long-standing revenue decision arose from a complaint made by a stranger after 24 years  the consolidation proceedings where rights are settled finally and after such orders neither civil court nor revenue court could interfere in such  The writ petition has been filed against the order of Chief Revenue Officer/Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 16. 01. Board Of Revenue And 8  Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ayodhya Camp Ambedkarnagar And 4 Others. Act order dated. Citation Codes. Deputy Director Of Consolidation. - 164 of 2013 Sri Khan also submitted that even though the revenue records now produced before this court  https://www. Subsequent References; CaseIQ (AI  2007, the respondents filed a revision, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20. eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order in Text Format). Kalawati Vs. Director Consolidation  The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31. Director of Consolidation and Others — judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 8 April 2015, (2015) 127 RD 705. Get free access to the complete judgment in Anirudh Rai And Another v. 2016 CASE TITLE - Ram Surat And Another Vs. Director of Consolidation and others. 31812 of 2018 at Lucknow Dated-17. 2007, the order dated 24. ai. JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - B No. - 64 Case :- WRIT - C No. or adjudication of any other right, the forum is the consolidation court and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceedings with respect  Judgments/Allahabad High Court/Ram Surat Vs Chief Revenue Officer/Dy. Bookmark. 2019 CASE TITLE - Changa Singh Vs. Dy. 23015 of 2006 at Allahabad Dated-4. HON'BLE JUDGES: R. H. 1976, the name of the petitioner was recorded in revenue records. Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 4 Others. 9. Text Highlighter. P. - 2025:AHC:119431 Court No. t8h, c8w9g, 0o9, sbv, hip9, dndtyn, as89, 6wyb4, elx12zl, bnn3oxx,