Skip to content


Manazir HussaIn Vs. Deputy Director, Consolidation, U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 798 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC1709; (1981)2SCC713
AppellantManazir Hussain
RespondentDeputy Director, Consolidation, U.P. and ors.
Excerpt:
- sections 3 &4: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly, jj] dowry death-death of wife by burn injuries accused husband was charged on the basis of statement made by father of deceased and letters written by deceased letters relied upon found to be not in handwriting of deceased - dying declaration not inculpating accused held, accused is not liable to be convicted.indian penal code, 1890.sections 304-b & 498a : dowry death-death of wife by burn injuries accused husband was charged on the basis of statement made by father of deceased and letters written by deceased letters relied upon found to be not in handwriting of deceased - dying declaration not inculpating accused held, accused is not liable to be convicted. .....from the order of the dy. director (consolidation) that he has not considered the question in regard to khatas nos. 135 and 356 on merits and he has set aside the order of the assistant settlement officer (consolidation) without proper consideration of the matter. we would, therefore, set aside the order passed by the high court as also the order of the dy. director (consolidation) in so far as these orders relate to khatas nos. 135 and 356 and remand the case to the dy. director (consolidation) so that he may consider the revision application of respondents nos. 4 to 11 in regard to khatas nos. 135 and 356 and dispose it of on merits after considering the oral and documentary evidence in regard to these two khatas. since the case is an old one we direct the dy. director.....
Judgment:

1. Special leave granted.

2. It appears from the order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) that he has not considered the question in regard to khatas Nos. 135 and 356 on merits and he has set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) without proper consideration of the matter. We would, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court as also the order of the Dy. Director (Consolidation) in so far as these orders relate to khatas Nos. 135 and 356 and remand the case to the Dy. Director (Consolidation) so that he may consider the revision application of respondents Nos. 4 to 11 in regard to khatas Nos. 135 and 356 and dispose it of on merits after considering the oral and documentary evidence in regard to these two khatas. Since the case is an old one we direct the Dy. Director (Consolidation) to dispose of the case as early as possible and in any event not later than the expiration of two months from today.

3. The parties will appear before the Dy. Director (Consolidation) at 11 a.m. on 9th March, 1981 for further directions in regard to the hearing of the case.

4. Status quo as on today will be maintained until disposal of the case by the Dy. Director (Consolidation).

5. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //