by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jan 30, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right that provides crucial safeguards to individuals who are arrested or detained. It is part of the broader protections under Article 22, which deals with the rights of arrested persons. Here is a detailed explanation of Article 22(2):
Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.
Key Features of Article 22(2)
- Production Before a Magistrate:
- Every person who is arrested must be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest.
- This ensures judicial oversight and prevents arbitrary or unlawful detention.
- Exclusion of Travel Time:
- The 24-hour period excludes the time required for travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court.
- This ensures that delays due to distance or transportation do not unfairly extend the detention period.
- Prohibition of Detention Beyond 24 Hours:
Purpose of Article 22(2)
- Prevent Arbitrary Detention: The provision ensures that no person is held in police custody without judicial scrutiny.
- Judicial Oversight: By requiring the arrested person to be produced before a magistrate, it allows the judiciary to review the legality of the arrest and the need for further detention.
- Protection of Liberty: It safeguards the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Relation to Other Legal Provisions
- Section 57 of the CrPC:
- Section 57 of the CrPC mirrors Article 22(2) by stating that a person arrested without a warrant cannot be detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a magistrate.
- Section 167 of the CrPC:
- If the police need to detain an arrested person beyond 24 hours, they must obtain a magistrate’s order under Section 167 of the CrPC.
- The magistrate can authorize police custody or judicial custody for a maximum of 15 days (in total), after which the person must be remanded to judicial custody.
- D.K. Basu Guidelines:
- In the landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of producing an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours to prevent custodial violence and abuse.
Exceptions to Article 22(2)
- Preventive Detention Laws:
- Article 22(2) does not apply to persons detained under preventive detention laws (e.g., National Security Act, Public Safety Acts).
- However, such detentions are governed by other safeguards under Article 22(4) to 22(7), which require the detainee to be informed of the grounds of detention and provide them with an opportunity to make a representation.
Consequences of Violating Article 22(2)
- Illegal Detention: Detaining a person beyond 24 hours without producing them before a magistrate is a violation of their fundamental rights.
- Remedies:
- The arrested person or their family can file a habeas corpus petition in the High Court or Supreme Court to challenge illegal detention.
- The police officer responsible for the violation may face disciplinary action or legal consequences.
Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution is a critical safeguard against arbitrary detention and custodial abuse. It ensures that an arrested person is brought before a magistrate within 24 hours, allowing judicial oversight and protecting the individual’s right to liberty. This provision, along with related laws like Section 57 and Section 167 of the CrPC, forms the backbone of procedural safeguards for arrested persons in India.
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jan 30, 2025 | Criminal Matter
In India, the process of arrest and the legal protections afforded to an arrested person are governed by the Constitution of India, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Below is an overview of the arrest process and the safeguards provided to an arrested person:
Process of Arrest in India
Grounds for Arrest:
-
- A police officer can arrest a person if they have committed a cognizable offense (where arrest can be made without a warrant) or if there is a reasonable suspicion of their involvement in a crime.
- For non-cognizable offenses, a warrant issued by a magistrate is required for arrest.
Procedure of Arrest:
-
- The police officer must inform the person of the grounds for arrest (Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC).
- The officer must clearly identify themselves and show their authority (if not in uniform).
- The arrested person must be taken to the police station without unnecessary delay.
- The arrest must be recorded in the police diary, and the person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest (excluding travel time) as per Section 57 of the CrPC and Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
Use of Force:
-
- Police can use reasonable force to arrest a person if they resist, but excessive force is prohibited.
Search of the Arrested Person:
-
- The police may search the arrested person and seize any weapons or evidence (Section 51 of the CrPC).
Medical Examination:
-
- If the arrest involves allegations of a serious offense, the police may request a medical examination of the arrested person (Section 53 of the CrPC).
Legal Protections and Safeguards for an Arrested Person
The Indian Constitution and criminal laws provide several safeguards to protect the rights of an arrested person:
- Right to Know the Grounds of Arrest:
- Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC mandate that the police must inform the person of the reasons for their arrest.
- Right to Remain Silent:
- An arrested person has the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves (Article 20(3) of the Constitution).
- Right to Legal Representation:
- An arrested person has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice (Article 22(1) of the Constitution).
- Right to be Produced Before a Magistrate:
- The arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest (Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 of the CrPC).
- Right to Bail:
- For bailable offenses, the arrested person has the right to be released on bail (Section 436 of the CrPC).
- For non-bailable offenses, bail is at the discretion of the court (Section 437 of the CrPC).
- Right to Inform a Relative or Friend:
- The police must inform a relative or friend of the arrested person about the arrest and the place of detention (Section 50A of the CrPC).
- Right to Free Legal Aid:
- If the arrested person cannot afford a lawyer, they are entitled to free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
- Protection Against Custodial Torture:
- The Supreme Court has ruled that custodial torture is a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
- The police must follow guidelines laid down in the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal case to prevent custodial violence.
- Right to Medical Examination:
- The arrested person has the right to a medical examination to ensure they are not subjected to physical harm (Section 54 of the CrPC).
- Right to Humane Treatment:
- The arrested person must be treated with dignity and cannot be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 21 of the Constitution).
- Right to Compensation for Wrongful Arrest:
- If a person is wrongfully arrested or detained, they can seek compensation through a writ petition under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution.
D.K. Basu Guidelines (Supreme Court Ruling)
In the landmark case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court laid down specific guidelines to prevent custodial violence and ensure the rights of arrested persons:
- The police must prepare a memo of arrest signed by a witness and the arrested person.
- The arrested person has the right to inform a relative or friend about the arrest.
- The arrest must be recorded in a police diary.
- The arrested person must be medically examined every 48 hours during detention.
- The arrested person has the right to meet their lawyer during interrogation.
The Indian legal system provides robust safeguards to protect the rights of an arrested person. These safeguards are designed to prevent arbitrary arrests, custodial violence, and violations of fundamental rights. However, the effectiveness of these protections often depends on the proper implementation of laws and the awareness of the arrested person about their rights.
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jan 30, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, is a crucial provision that safeguards the rights of an arrested person by limiting the time they can be detained in police custody without being produced before a magistrate. Here are the key details of Section 57:
Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours: No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.
Key Points of Section 57
- Time Limit for Detention:
- A person arrested without a warrant cannot be detained in police custody for more than 24 hours.
- This 24-hour period excludes the time required for travel from the place of arrest to the magistrate’s court.
- Production Before Magistrate:
- The arrested person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
- This is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution, which states: “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
- Special Order for Extended Detention:
- If the police need to detain the arrested person beyond 24 hours, they must obtain a special order from a magistrate under Section 167 of the CrPC.
- Under Section 167, a magistrate can authorize police custody or judicial custody for a maximum of 15 days (in total), after which the person must be remanded to judicial custody.
- Purpose of the Provision:
- Section 57 aims to prevent illegal detention and custodial abuse by ensuring that an arrested person is brought before a judicial authority promptly.
- It ensures that the magistrate can review the legality of the arrest and the need for further detention.
Exceptions to Section 57
- If the arrested person is taken to a magistrate within 24 hours, but the magistrate is not available (e.g., due to holidays or non-working hours), the person may be detained until the magistrate is available, provided the total detention does not exceed 24 hours.
Consequences of Violating Section 57
- Detaining an arrested person beyond 24 hours without producing them before a magistrate is a violation of the law.
- The arrested person or their family can file a habeas corpus petition in the High Court or Supreme Court to challenge illegal detention.
- The police officer responsible for the violation may face disciplinary action or legal consequences.
Relation to Other Legal Provisions
- Article 22(2) of the Constitution: Reinforces the requirement of producing an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours.
- Section 167 of the CrPC: Allows for extended detention beyond 24 hours only with a magistrate’s order.
- D.K. Basu Guidelines: The Supreme Court, in the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) case, emphasized the importance of producing an arrested person before a magistrate within 24 hours to prevent custodial violence and abuse.
Section 57 of the CrPC is a vital safeguard against arbitrary detention and custodial abuse. It ensures that an arrested person is brought before a judicial authority within 24 hours, allowing the magistrate to review the legality of the arrest and the necessity of further detention. This provision upholds the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, particularly the right to liberty and protection against unlawful detention
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jan 27, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Bail order with condition to deposit fifty lakh rupees and two sureties of fifty thousand rupees. My husband is not in a position to deposit that amount consequently he is not enlarged on bail. A false criminal case has been filed by one partner of my husband’s firm. My husband is running a firm for trading in food grains. We are living in Madhya Pradesh, and our firm is situated in Sihor. My husband contracted thirty thousand ton of rice with a firm in Madhya Pradesh. He received five crores advance because there was shortage of rice in the state. My husband’s firm has supplied twenty-seven thousand ton to the firm and received another nine crores from that firm. He deposited that amount in bank and for some other purpose drawn five crores from the bank account.
This fact was not in the knowledge of his partner. When he knew about it immediately lodged first information report in the XX police station. When we came to know about the FIR immediately move anticipatory bail application. Bail is granted by the court but with the condition to deposit fifty lakh rupees in the court. Despite bail order my husband is not able to furnish sureties.
Asked from: Madhya Pradesh
The condition imposed by the court is illegal as it undermines the fundamental principle of bail. The court is not meant to act as a recovery agent. This condition is indeed unreasonable because the purpose of surety is to ensure the attendance of the accused during the trial and court proceedings, not to compensate the complainant. In Munish Bhasin v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (2009) 4 SCC 45, the Supreme Court observed that
it is well established that, while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code, neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court is justified in imposing arbitrary or excessive conditions. Although courts can impose necessary, just, and efficacious conditions based on the facts and circumstances of a case, they cannot subject the accused to irrelevant conditions.
The conditions that can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail are outlined in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code. Generally, such conditions are meant to:
- Ensure the accused’s presence before the investigating officer or court,
- Prevent the accused from evading justice,
- Prevent tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses,
- Restrict the accused’s movements in a specific area to maintain law and order.
Imposing any condition beyond these parameters exceeds the jurisdiction conferred upon the court under Section 438 of the Code. When imposing conditions under Section 438, the court must exercise caution and ensure it does not exceed its jurisdiction or impose unwarranted conditions. Conditions under Section 438 should not be harsh, excessive, or onerous, as doing so would defeat the very purpose of granting anticipatory bail.
You should file an application in the High Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita [Section 482 crpc] to quash the unreasonable condition of depositing fifty lakh rupees as bail. The High Court is likely to quash this condition, as it is unjust, unreasonable, and unfair. After quashing such a harsh condition, the High Court may impose reasonable conditions if it deems them appropriate.
Also read: Recall of cognisance order
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jan 27, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Whether recall of cognisance order is mandatory before seeking further investigation? The investigating officer has committed grave error in the charge sheet. He has saved the accused from main offence. Instead of it he is submitted charge sheet in lesser offence. The offence was committed by the accused along with his friend MMM but the investigating officer completely saved the MMM from the alleged offence and also submitted charge sheet for sexual harassment instead of rape. The victim suffered several injuries on her private part. But the investigating officer ignored that medical report and filed charge sheet in sexual offence only. I approach the superior officer but he said that cognisance order should be recalled before further investigation. Judicial magistrate has taken cognisance of the offence. In this situation whether recall of cognisance order is mandatory? I want further investigation in this case.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
The recall of a cognizance order is not mandatory. It is within the prerogative of the investigating agency to decide whether to conduct further investigation into a matter. Further investigation can be conducted even after the submission of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) [Section 193 BNSS].
Upon receiving a final report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC, the Magistrate has the authority to order further investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Section 173(8) of the CrPC specifically addresses further investigation and supplementary reports. In State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515 the Supreme Court has held that
In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it appears that though the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
Subsection (8) of Section 173 clarifies that nothing in this section precludes further investigation into an offence after a report under subsection (2) has been submitted to the Magistrate. Thus, even after the filing of a chargesheet or challan under Section 173(2), the police may conduct further investigation under Section 173(8).
In Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(2009) 6 SCC 346], the Supreme Court held that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is supplemental, additional, and a continuation of the earlier investigation, rather than a fresh or de novo investigation that nullifies the previous one.
When a final report is forwarded by the Investigating Officer to the Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) of the CrPC, several possibilities arise:
- The Magistrate may accept the report, take cognizance of the offence, and issue process.
- The Magistrate may disagree with the report, drop the proceedings, or take cognizance based on the material submitted by the Investigating Officer.
- The Magistrate may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the police to submit a report as per Section 173(8).
- The Magistrate may treat a protest complaint as a complaint and proceed under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC.
You said that the victim of rape has suffered several injuries on her private part. It prima facie constitutes the offence of rape. Therefore, submitting charge sheet for sexual harassment is unjust and renders the final report faulty. It is not a justice for the victim of rape. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 5 SCC 347], the Supreme Court emphasized that
The prime consideration for further investigation is to ascertain the truth and ensure justice. Further investigation should not be hindered solely due to potential delays in concluding the trial if it aids in uncovering the truth and delivering substantial justice.
In Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P. [(1999) 5 SCC 740], the Court observed:
- The police’s power to conduct further investigation after submitting a final report is recognized under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. Even after the court takes cognizance of an offence based on the initial police report, the police may carry out further investigation. However, it is desirable for the police to inform the court and seek formal permission to proceed.
- The court also holds the authority to direct the police to conduct further investigation. There is no statutory obligation for the court to hear the accused before issuing such a direction. Imposing such an obligation would unnecessarily burden the Magistrate, as the law does not mandate this requirement.
In King-Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [(1943-44) 71 IA 203], the Privy Council highlighted the importance of maintaining the separation of functions between the judiciary and the police. It was stated that the judiciary should not interfere with police investigations, which are within the statutory domain of the police. The police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offences without requiring judicial approval, although courts retain the right to intervene in appropriate cases, such as habeas corpus petitions under Section 491 of the CrPC.
If the investigating agency deems it necessary to conduct further investigation to gather additional evidence related to the alleged offence or to address any lacunae in the current investigation, there is no requirement to recall the Magistrate’s cognisance order.
Also read: What to do if investigating officer submits biased final report?
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jan 25, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Investigating officer submitted biased final report under section 173(2) crpc under the pressure of accused. The accused are very influential and politically strong to manage the police. They have compelled the investigating officer to save them and file final report. In that pressure and influence (probably receiving bribe from the accused) the investigating officer has submitted final report. I want to challenge the investigation. I am not getting justice from the police authority. There are several flaws deliberately committed by the investigating officer. How to approach the court for direction of further investigation?
Asked from: Bihar
At this stage you should not approach the court for seeking direction for further investigation. You should approach the Superintendent of Police for such a direction. After the investigating officer submits the final report under sub section 2 of section 173 of the code of criminal procedure, the police authority can still conduct further investigation. In Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali alias Deepak (2010), the supreme court held that
The police authority can conduct further investigation. This can be done after submitting a police report under section 173(2) crpc. But they should seek a formal permission from the court for further investigation.
The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 2 SCC 322. You should approach the superior police officer for such a direction. The Superintendent of police can direct the investigating officer to do further investigation if he finds that the investigation was done in the manner to provide undue favour to the accused. You have to show that
- The investigating officer submitted biased final report under section 173(2) crpc.
- The real culprits have been protected by the faulty investigation.
- Line of investigation adopted by the investigating officer suggests an intention to save the accused.
If specific allegations have made in the FIR and the investigating officer has ignored that allegations this will constitute a good ground for further investigation. In case the superintendent of police does not take proper action or refused to pass such an order after finding the investigation is faulty then you should file a criminal misc. writ petition in the high court under article 226 of constitution of India for direction of further investigation.
Also read: Transfer case to another investigating agency
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jan 15, 2025 | Service Matters
Transfer order under political influence, especially by the minister. In the month of December 2024, I was transferred from one district to another, which initially gave me a sense of hope for a fresh start. Upon joining at the transferred place, I began to adapt to the new environment and engage with the local community. However, the situation took a perplexing turn when the individual who was transferred from this location, having established good political connections, met with the local MLA and, through influence and negotiations, managed to cancel his own transfer. Since his transfer order was rescinded, I found myself in a precarious position as I was once again ordered to relocate to another district within a matter of weeks.
In an effort to address this unsettling development, I reached out to my senior officer to request consideration of my circumstances and to appeal for the cancellation of this new transfer order; regrettably, I received no response from my superior officer, which was disheartening. Furthermore, I took the initiative to submit a formal representation to the director, seeking intervention, but that too is still pending, leaving me in a state of uncertainty. No decision has been reached by the director regarding my representation, which heightens my anxiety.
This has created an incredibly challenging scenario for me, complicating my ability to manage family obligations and compelling me to consider uprooting yet again in such harsh and cold weather, making it nearly impossible to ensure stability for my family during this tumultuous period.
Asked from: Himachal Pradesh
A transfer of an employee under political influence is not permissible under the law. Transfer orders are presumed to address administrative exigencies, and every such order issued by an administrative officer must be just, fair, and reasonable. The officer is required to make decisions based on the facts and materials available, ensuring that each decision is well-reasoned, especially in the case of transferring government servants.
If an officer acts under the influence or direction of a political figure, the order cannot be deemed reasonable or fair and is therefore invalid in the eyes of the law. In Tondon Brothers case [(2001) 5 SCC 664], the Supreme Court emphasized that an administrative officer’s opinion must be based on available materials and justifiable reasons. The formation of an opinion without a valid basis renders the decision legally unsound.
Political interference cannot be regarded as an administrative ground for transfer. If such influence is evident in a transfer order, the order may be challenged in the High Court. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed to seek quashing of the transfer order, particularly when it lacks administrative justification or involves an unjustified cancellation and re-transfer of a government servant within a short period.
A transfer order influenced by political directives is arbitrary, unjust, and unreasoned. If the court satisfies that transfer order was passed under political influence, the court may intervene and quash the order.
Also read: How to quash wrong order of disability pension?
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Jan 1, 2025 | Criminal Matter
Complaint under Section 138 NI Act rejected for prematurity. My advocate presented a complaint for the offence of cheque bounce and the court has issued summons to the accused. The accused appeared in the court two years only after issuance of non bailable warrant. When the accused appeared in the court through his advocate he took copies of the complaint. He immediately moved a petition in the high court for quashing of the complaint. I appeared in the high court and argued that the trial court has already taken cognisance after lapse 27 days from the date of receiving of demand notice. The high court said that the complaint was filed on fourteenth day instead of fifteen days. My advocate argued that cognisance has been taken and the accused has appeared through counsel but the high court has dismissed my complaint. Sir, in this situation what should I do to carry on criminal proceedings against the accused because he has cheated and taken my hard earned money.
Asked from: Maharashtra
Your complaint has been filed before the expiration of the mandatory fifteen-day period from the date of receiving the demand notice. According to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cause of action for initiating a criminal case against the accused for the dishonor of a cheque arises when the drawee of the cheque fails to pay the amount within fifteen days from the date of receiving of demand notice.
When the bank returns the cheque unpaid due to insufficient funds or any other reason, the drawer of the cheque must serve a demand notice to the drawee. At this stage, no offence is considered to have been committed by the drawee. Upon receiving the demand notice, the drawee must discharge their liability by paying the amount mentioned in the cheque to the drawer. If the drawee pays the amount, no offence has been committed, and no cause of action arises.
Also read: Compromise in cheque bounce after conviction
If the drawee fails to pay the amount within fifteen days from the date of receiving the notice, the offence is considered to have been committed on the fifteenth day. Unless and until the offence has been committed or a cause of action has arisen, a complaint for that offence cannot be filed. According to Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only when it has been committed.
In the Sarav Investment and Financial Consultancy case [(2007) 14 SCC 753], the Supreme Court held that the Negotiable Instruments Act is a special enactment, and Section 138 provides a penal provision; therefore, it must be strictly construed. Consequently, unless and until the offence is committed or a cause of action arises, no complaint can be filed. If a complaint is filed before the expiration of fifteen days, it is not considered a valid complaint in the eyes of the law.
Also read: Unreasonable condition imposed on bail order
In this situation, you should file a fresh complaint within thirty days from the date of the rejection of the original complaint. There is no bar to filing a fresh complaint if the previous complaint was dismissed due to prematurity.
In Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and Others [(2014) 10 SCC 713], the Supreme Court held that if a complaint is filed before the completion of the fifteen-day period and is subsequently dismissed, the aggrieved person may file a fresh complaint within thirty days from the date of the order of dismissal. Therefore, if a complaint under Section 138 NI Act rejected for prematurity the drawer can file a fresh complaint.
Also read: My husband’s second wife claiming right to residence in my own property
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Dec 26, 2024 | Property Dispute Cases
Alteration in gata without notice. I was not informed about the changes in my gata and was not included in the revision process, which I believe is fundamentally unfair. My neighbor took the initiative to submit a revision to the Deputy District Director of Consolidation in Ayodhya without my knowledge or consent. This move resulted in the Deputy District Director ordering the transfer of part of my gata, a decision that holds significant implications for my property rights and future stability. This decision affects me deeply because when I subsequently appealed to the Settlement Officer for Consolidation to contest this unwarranted action, my appeal was dismissed outright. The grounds for this dismissal were that the gata number had already been altered by the DDC, thereby rendering any further changes impossible. This situation has left me feeling helpless as this was the only reason given for my appeal’s dismissal, suggesting that my voice and concerns were overlooked.
It is disheartening to note that my gata comprises a minjumla account with sixteen tenure holders, indicating a shared responsibility and collective rights over the land. One of those tenure holders, who has been particularly insistent, expressed a desire to transfer his gata number 1298/2 to 397. In his pursuit of this goal, he decided to file a suit with the consolidation officer, only to come away empty-handed without any relief or resolution. Frustrated by the lack of progress and perhaps feeling a sense of urgency, he went ahead and appealed, but he did so without including me in the process, which I see as a significant oversight.
Compounding matters, when a nali was marked on his gata 397—an indication of some official recognition—he seized the opportunity to file a revision to the DDC, naming only the State of Uttar Pradesh in his revision, thus excluding all other relevant parties, including myself. The DDC, in a ruling that has left me feeling sidelined, ultimately decided in his favor, announcing that the nali had been exchanged for gata number 1298/2. Now, I find myself unhappy and disturbed by the DDC’s order, feeling as though my rights have been trampled upon.
In the wake of these events, some people have advised me to take legal action by filing a writ petition in the High Court to seek justice. However, I am now left pondering what my next steps should be in order to rectify this situation and regain my stake in my gata.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
The District Deputy Consolidation officer has committed grave error while deciding the revision petition. According to section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Act, it is mandatory to serve a notice to all affected person to represent in the revision petition. Your gata has been altered by the order of DDC passed in revision. You got no notice from the DDC which strikes at the root of the case. It is settled law that gata cannot be altered or amended more than one.
You should prefer a writ petition in the High Court for setting aside of the order of the revisional court. Your right has been curtailed by the erroneous order and also you have no remedy except the writ petition. In the writ petition you have to prima facie prove your grievance. If the court finds that alteration in gata is without your notice, the court may quash the order of the DDC. You have to prove that your grievance is genuine which must be considered by the SOC.
Also read: Basic features of consolidation
by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Dec 17, 2024 | Armed Forces Tribunal
AFT passed the wrong order of disability pension and granted me a 20% disability pension for two years only. Whereas I was 50% disabled and as per NANA I am entitled to get pension for life, therefore filed an OA in the Armed Forces Tribunal Lucknow. That case is challenged on the maintainability. The UOI said that case is not maintainable.
Asked from: Uttar Pradesh
It appears that you previously filed an Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and received a favorable order. However, you are now dissatisfied with the order that AFT passed the wrong order of disability pension.
If your disability was caused or aggravated by military service conditions, the disability percentage should have been set at 50%. Based on this, you would be entitled to receive a lifelong pension.
Recently, you filed another Original Application, seeking a declaration that your disability percentage be set at 50% and that you should receive a pension accordingly. However, it is important to understand that if the same issue has already been adjudicated by the tribunal in the past, you cannot file a new case on the same grounds. This is because of the principle of res-judicata, which prevents the reopening of a case that has already been decided.
In this situation, the appropriate course of action would be to withdraw your current Original Application and instead file a modification application. If you believe you are entitled to a lifelong pension, you should seek a modification of the existing order passed by the AFT, rather than filing a new case.
You still have an opportunity to seek the modification of the original order. There is no need to file a completely new Original Application. The objection raised by the opposite party, asserting that your current application is not maintainable, is valid. The AFT is likely to dismiss your case on the grounds of maintainability, given that the issue has already been adjudicated.
Also read: My husband’s second wife claiming right to residence in my own property
