Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953

16 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

KRISHNANAND (D) THROUGH. LRS.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.

2014 INSC 102028 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned the ownership of Khata No. 201 in Sultanpur, where Kamla Devi claimed a share inherited from her father Ram Samujh, while Krishna Nand and Shiv Ram asserted title based on a 1938 purchase recorded in their uncle Ram Adhar's name. Three consolidation authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidatio

STATE OF U.P. (NOW UTTARAKHAND)versusRABINDRA SINGH

2009 INSC 62327 April 2009Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand) appealed against a High Court order that had allowed the writ petition of Rabindra Singh, who occupied a 4.10‑bigha plot of agricultural land. The central question was whether land covered by Section 3(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 f

RAM AVTAR AND ORS.versusRAM DHANI AND ORS

1996 INSC 112026 September 1996Dismissed

The widow Smt. Phoola was allotted land in 1932 as part of a family compromise for her maintenance and her name was entered in revenue records. She later sold the land in 1956 to the respondents, but other members of the Hindu Undivided Family challenged the sale, claiming she only held a limited interest under Section

NISAR AHMAD & ORS.versusSAMI ULLAH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

2024 INSC 82024 October 2024

The dispute concerned the shares of Muslim parties in agricultural holdings (Khata Nos. 98, 99 and 100) in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants, heirs of Zahoor Ahmed, claimed a half‑share in the lands, while the respondents, heirs of Sami Ullah, asserted that the appellants were entitled only to a one‑twelfth shar

AMAR NATHversusKEWLA DEVI &ANR.

2014 INSC 30422 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Amar Nath filed a suit for possession of agricultural land, alleging that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 14‑02‑1970 was obtained by fraud and that he was entitled to a half‑share as the son of Vaij Nath. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding it barred by the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Lan

SHYAM SINGHversusDARYAO SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 64919 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Shyam Singh filed a suit for specific performance of a 1971 agreement of repurchase of land against Daryao Singh (deceased) and other respondents. The trial court and appellate courts dismissed the suit, holding that the right of repurchase was a personal right of the original sellers (defendants 2‑4) and could not be

SITA RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusBHARAT SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

2019 INSC 103617 September 2019Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of the original tenure holders of Plot No. 2902, challenged the validity of a 1973 sale deed that transferred the plot to the respondents and a subsequent 1974 exchange deed that was executed without the permission of the Assistant Collector required under Section 161 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindar

MADAN MOHAN MISHRAversusCHANRIKA PANDEY (DEAD) BY LRS.

2009 INSC 20217 February 2009Dismissed

The appellant, Madan Mohan Mishra, filed a suit in 1994 seeking to set aside a deed of gift concerning agricultural lands, alleging the deed was void. Earlier, a suit filed in 1969 concerning the same lands was abated by an order dated 17 July 1973 under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and the ap

GULJAR SINGH & ORS.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

2009 INSC 50515 April 2009Dismissed

The dispute concerned 564 bighas of land that had been jointly purchased and later divided among several tenure holders, whose names were not correctly entered in revenue records. The appellants sought correction of the records, leading to a series of applications before the Sub‑Divisional Officer, Assistant Recording

VIRENDRA NATH THR. P.A. HOLDER R.R. GUPTAversusMOHD. JAMIL AND ORS.

2004 INSC 39614 July 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the original recorded owners of certain lands in Uttar Pradesh, challenged the recording of Jan Mohammad as Sirdar under section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, on the basis of his alleged adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer had initially recorded him as

RAM AVADH & ORS.versusRAM DAS & ORS.

2008 INSC 66414 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased land from co‑tenure holders (the vendors) and sought entry of their names in the revenue records. The respondents objected, claiming the vendors' father (Faqir) had no right to the land and that his entry in the 1356 Fasli Khatauni was fictitious. The Consolidation Officer allowed the appellant

NARENDER SINGHversusJAI BHAGWAN AND ORS.

2004 INSC 7059 December 2004Dismissed

The father, a tenure‑holder, executed a sale agreement for agricultural lands that were part of a consolidation proceeding and were recorded solely in his name. The plaintiff sued for specific performance, while the father (deceased) and his sons argued that the father could not sell the entire land because the sons we

AMBIKA PRASAD MISHRA ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC.

1980 INSC 1179 May 1980Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, which imposes land‑holding ceilings and provides for surplus land surrender, consolidation, and related restrictions. Petitioners challenged various provisions on grounds of violation of Article

RAM BAHAL &ANR.versusDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH & ORS.

2015 INSC 7508 October 2015Dismissed

The appeal concerned plots in Azamgarh where the appellants claimed ownership by adverse possession and payment of compensation, while the respondents sought expunction of the appellants' names from revenue records. The Consolidation Officer ordered expunction, the Settlement Officer later recorded the appellants as Se

STATE OF U.P.versusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

1996 INSC 6968 July 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring 22.11 acres of land a reserved forest. The respondents, recorded as Sirdari holders, claimed they had acquired ownership under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and therefore the forest no

SURAJ MAL AND ANOTHERversusRAM SINGH AND OTHERS

1986 INSC 1637 August 1986Dismissed

Suraj Mal and another (appellants) claimed title to a Zamindari parcel sold by Sona Devi, arguing that the sale deed gave them a valid interest. The respondents, Sona Devi's minor sons, sued for declaration that their mother only had a life interest and that the sale was void, seeking possession. The Munsif decreed in

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search