Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Decided
1 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 488 · 1997 INSC 345

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on 30.11.1977 in Special Appeal Nos. 1047 & 1048 of 1970.

p. 488, margin F

It is not necessary to dilate upon the three-tier history of the litigation. Suffice it to state that pursuant to the remand order made by the High Court in the last instance, the Deputy Director has gone into the question whether the Settlement Officer under the Consolidation Act has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines "land" to mean the land held or occupied for the purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry which includes pissiculture and poultry form and also the site, being part of a holding, of a house of other similar structures.

pp. 488–489, margin F

In view of the above definition under Section 3(5) of the Consolidation Act, the buildings occupying the land and used for commercial purposes are not covered by the Act. Therefore, the High Court had lef<. the dispute open for a decision by the appropriate Court.

p. 489, margin A

It is an admitted position that the appellants and the respondents are holding haats in those areas. Under the U.P. Land Reforms Act, 1950 the question whether such lands vest in the State on abolition of the estates etc. is also a matter left open since the State is not a party to these proceedings. It may be open to the appellants to have their right adjudicated as ordered by the High Court in an appropriate proceeding according to law.

p. 489, margin B

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.

p. 489, margin C