JAGDAMBA PRASAD Vs. KRIPA SHANKAR
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on April 04,2014

JAGDAMBA PRASAD Appellant
VERSUS
KRIPA SHANKAR Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SHAMBHOO VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-162] [REFERRED TO]
ACHHUA VS. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, HAMIRPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-299] [REFERRED TO]
FAUJDAR & OTHERS VS. D D C & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-356] [REFERRED TO]
BALAK RAM AND ORS. VS. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-495] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV VS. D.D.C. AZAMGARH [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
KANCHAN SINGH VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-131] [REFERRED TO]
RAHAT SINGH VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MUZAFFARNAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
NATHOO RAM VS. D.D.C. & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
BHIKHARI VS. D.D.C. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-676] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURAT VS. D.D.C., ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
RAM UDIT VS. D.D.C. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. NEELAM RANA VS. MRS. MEERA DEWAN [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-92] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is filed by the appellants questioning the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4688 of 1974, urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of their claim.
Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.

(2.)The appellants filed objections before the Consolidation Officer for the deletion of the name of one Bhukhali (father of the respondents) since the appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously mentioned in the revenue records pertaining to Khata no. 63 of Village Badhaiya, Pargana Kewai. The plot Nos. 552, 570 and 574 in the present case, are registered in the names of the landowners Mahadev, Shambhu Nath and Bhukhali respectively. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath belong to the same family whereas Bhukhali was the resident of another village.
(3.)Objections were initially filed by the appellants whose father was 1/3rd share holder of the land which was recorded in the name of Bhukhali- the father of the respondents. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath, the other share holders of the land conceded to the rights of the appellants. Rajpati- the son of Bhukhali, was also made a party to the proceedings but neither he filed any objection nor he claimed his rights over the land in question before the Consolidation Officer.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.