Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
35 judgments · newest first · showing 1–35
The petitioner, Dharmveer Singh, filed a writ petition seeking the cancellation of consolidation proceedings that were initiated under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The High Court had earlier directed the State's standing counsel to obtain instructions, which …
Parasnath filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Consolidation Officer to decide his objection on the maintainability of a proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 by respondent No. 4. The petitioner argued that his objection should be …
Petitioner Bhoop Singh challenged an order dated 28‑Oct‑2025 issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, alleging that his original single chak comprising plots 227 and 229 was altered without considering his objection, causing …
The petitioners, a group of nine occupants, claimed exclusive possession of a parcel of land, asserting that the Consolidation Officer had recorded them as the sole occupants under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The Appellate and Revisional Authorities, however, held that all …
The appellants, five villagers, intervened in a writ petition seeking the completion of consolidation proceedings in Gram Sabha Biral, Muzaffarnagar, which had remained pending for over three decades. The Single Judge ordered the authorities to finish the consolidation within six months, relying on …
The petitioners from Village Beraspur challenged a notification dated 5‑June‑2024 issued under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, seeking its production and quashment. They argued that the conditions for such a notification were not met and that the State should not …
The petitioner, Shyam Sundar, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gorakhpur to decide Appeal No. 0162 of 2025 (Gajendranath Mishra vs. Shyam Sundar) under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioner alleged …
The petitioner, Dhananjay Rai, challenged the consolidation officer’s orders dated 01.07.2025 and 09.10.2025 relating to a time‑barred title objection filed under Section 9‑A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The officer had earlier condoned the delay in filing the objection …
The petitioner sought to have his name recorded under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 based on a sale deed dated 13 July 2020, after the village had been notified under Section 6 of the same Act on 28 February 2013. Earlier orders by the Consolidation Officer in his favour …
The petitioners claimed rights over plot 545/2 based on possession and filed an objection under Section 122‑B(4‑F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Their objection was rejected in 1997, but an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation was allowed in July 1999. …
The petitioner Shanti Devi filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 226 seeking the High Court to direct the District Deputy Director of Consolidation to expedite correction of a land‑record entry (Plot No. 86) that had been re‑classified from ‘Banjar’ to ‘Abadi’ without any change in …
The petition, filed in 1982, sought relief against the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerning a claim of adverse possession over land. The private respondent, represented by legal heirs, alleged title based on adverse possession, but the claim was rejected because the required possession …
Petitioners Subhash and two others filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Deputy Director of Consolidation to refrain from initiating proceedings under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and to decide an objection filed on 01‑09‑2025. The petition also …
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer of Kirtapur, Jaunpur, to decide the pending case Rest/312 (Ramkesh Vs. Phoolpatti) under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a reasonable time. The standing counsel for the …
The petitioners, Rakesh Singh and four others, challenged an FIR dated 02‑02‑2026 filed by Vimal Kumar Singh under sections 191(2), 351(2), 352 and 324(4) of the IPC, alleging that the criminal case arose out of a civil land‑dispute involving consolidation proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of …
The dispute concerned ownership of ancestral land in Mustafabad village, originally belonging to Angat and inherited by his sons, including Kalyan Singh, who was a co‑owner before consolidation proceedings began. Ram Jai Lal, an uncle, sought to have Kalyan Singh’s name removed from the revenue …
The Supreme Court examined whether 162 acres of land in Kasmandi Khurd, Uttar Pradesh, vested in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and was subsequently declared a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It held that the Gaon Sabha had no authority to …
The appellant, Hansraj, was the original bhumidhar of Plot No.677 in Village Bahria, Basti, and a co‑sharer with respondents who had acquired a half‑share by sale. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the Assistant Consolidation Officer initially proposed chaks for all co‑sharers on …
The Mahant of a temple (appellant) owned a portion of Plot No. 212/2, while Deoki Devi (respondent) owned Plot No. 319. During consolidation proceedings the appellant was allotted land in Plots 212/2, 215 and 216, and a front portion of Plot 212/2 was designated as bachat land for the Gaon Sabha. …
The appeal concerned a land‑inheritance dispute where the petitioners sought to set aside an order of the Consolidation Officer that rejected their claim to a share of land. The petitioners argued that earlier judgments in a separate proceeding involving the same parties, but concerning a different …
The dispute concerned the inclusion of Rajni Kant and Anjani Kumar as heirs of the late Chandra Deo Singh in land records (khata) under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The respondents claimed they were legitimate children born out of a long‑standing live‑in …
The dispute concerned co‑tenancy rights over land recorded in Khata No. 111 in Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants claimed ancestral rights based on a pedigree tracing back to the original ancestor Saltanati, while the respondents asserted exclusive rights as successors of Adhin, whose name was …
The dispute concerned three plots (Nos. 1366‑1368) in Maliyana village, Meerut, which were used as land appurtenant to the staff quarters of Jaswant Sugar Mill (later V.P. State Sugar Corporation). Dewa Ram, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, claimed sirdari rights based on a lease …
The appellants, Sheo Nano and others, claimed Sirdari rights over several plots by adverse possession, while the Deputy Director of Consolidation, acting under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, found the recorded tenure‑holder Jethu to be a civil death with no heirs and ordered the land …
Muneshwar (deceased) filed a partition suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, which was decreed but never executed, leaving him in possession of the land. The respondents later filed a suit for possession under Section 209, more than six years after the date prescribed in …
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act 33 of 1972, which abolished letters‑patent appeals from judgments of a single High Court judge in writ jurisdiction concerning revenue and tenancy matters. The petitioners challenged the amendment …
Kishori claimed ownership of two plots in Varanasi and filed objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. He had earlier instituted a civil suit on 5 January 1954 for injunction and possession against Faqir in the Munsif Court; the trial court dismissed it, but the appellate court …
Sugan Chand filed a suit under Section 229‑B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, claiming possession of certain plots. The trial court and the first appellate court recorded a finding in his favour. While a second appeal was pending, a notification under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of …
Girwar Singh, a large zamindar, died leaving agricultural and other property, leading to multiple testamentary suits and a pending civil suit over the non‑agricultural portion. While the civil suit was pending, consolidation proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were …
The widow Jivani, after the death of her husband Bahadur Singh (the last male holder of tenancy rights), claimed to have created a joint tenancy with Jwala Singh under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The appellants, heirs of the original tenant, challenged the decree, alleging it was …
The appellant claimed a half‑share in ancestral land based on his lineage and long‑term possession, which the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer recognized. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, exercising power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, reversed …
The dispute involved Sita Ram (appellant) and Chhota Bhondey (respondent No 1) together with two other family members over shares in lands recorded in Khata Nos 72 and 73 in Sambhalpur Sheoli, Uttar Pradesh. The matters were examined in consolidation proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of …
The plaintiff, an illiterate woman, was deceived by defendants who made her sign two deeds—one a genuine gift deed to her daughter and the other a fraudulent sale deed to the defendants—by misrepresenting the character of the documents. She later discovered the fraud and filed a suit to cancel the …
The appellants, Zafar Khan and others, claimed possession of land based on a decree under the U.P. Tenancy Act and later asserted they were bhumidars under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The respondents, having become adhivasis under the same Act, regained possession …
Karbalai Begum, a widow, claimed joint possession of two plots of land that she and her late husband's cousins (Mohd. Bashir and Mohd. Rasheed) owned as co‑sharers after the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act. She alleged that the defendants, who managed the land while she lived in Lucknow, …
