Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Pyare Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Ram Pyare vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 09, 1972
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/459314

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Misc. Writ No. 6725 of 1972
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - review - Section 41 of U.P. Consolidations of Holdings Act, 1954 - whether power to review its own judgment can be exercised by Courts - held, cannot be reviewed unless power is conferred. -

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 - Sections 41; Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Pyare

Advocate Markandey Katju, Adv.

Respondent

Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Advocate Standing Counsel

Legal References

Acts
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 - Sections 41; Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901
Reported In
AIR1973All347

Excerpt

civil - review - section 41 of u.p. consolidations of holdings act, 1954 - whether power to review its own judgment can be exercised by courts - held, cannot be reviewed unless power is conferred. - hari swarup, j.1. through this petition the order of the deputy director of consolidation dismissing as not maintainable the application for review of the order passed in revision is being challenged. admittedly there in no specific provision in the u. p. consolidation of holdings act, hereinafter referred to as the act, conferring on the deputy director of consolidation the power to review his judgment. learned counsel contends that section 41 of the act confers such power.2. section 41 reads as under:'unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this act, the provisions of chapters ix and x of the u. p. land revenue act, 1901 shall apply to all proceedings including appeal and applications under this act.'chapter x of the land revenue act gives the power to the board of revenue to review its judgment there is, however, no provision therein regarding review of orders by authorities under the u. p. consolidation of holdings act.3. in our opinion section 41 of the act only makes applicable the provisions of chapters ix and x of the u. p. land revenue act to proceedings initiated under the u. p. consolidation of holdings act, including proceedings of appeal and revision. once the proceedings are initiated under this act, the procedure laid down in chapters ix and x shall apply. section 41, however, does not authorise the initiation of proceedings not contemplated or authorised by the act. the power of review has to be specifically conferred and unless there is a provision in the act permitting initiation of such proceeding, the question of applicability of procedure laid down in charters ix and x of the u. p. land revenue act does not arise. in the case of qadam singh v. ganga saran, 1960 all lj 836 this court had taken the view that no review lies. we are also of the same view.4. the petition is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

Hari Swarup, J.

1. Through this petition the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing as not maintainable the application for review of the order passed in Revision is being challenged. Admittedly there in no specific provision in the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, conferring on the Deputy Director of Consolidation the power to review his judgment. Learned counsel contends that Section 41 of the Act confers such power.

2. Section 41 reads as under:

'Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall apply to all proceedings including appeal and applications under this Act.'

Chapter X of the Land Revenue Act gives the power to the Board of Revenue to review its judgment There is, however, no provision therein regarding review of orders by authorities under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

3. In our opinion Section 41 of the Act only makes applicable the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U. P. Land Revenue Act to proceedings initiated under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, including proceedings of appeal and revision. Once the proceedings are initiated under this Act, the procedure laid down in Chapters IX and X shall apply. Section 41, however, does not authorise the initiation of proceedings not contemplated or authorised by the Act. The power of review has to be specifically conferred and unless there is a provision in the Act permitting initiation of such proceeding, the question of applicability of procedure laid down in Charters IX and X of the U. P. Land Revenue Act does not arise. In THe case of Qadam Singh v. Ganga Saran, 1960 All LJ 836 this Court had taken the view that no review lies. We are also of the same view.

4. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial