Jurisdictional Ambiguity In The UPCH Act: A Critical Analysis Of Post-Consolidation Corrections Of Maps
- IJLLR Journal
- Aug 12
- 1 min read
Vishal Lolarknath Tiwari, Research Associate at Allahabad High Court
ABSTRACT
This article examines a significant jurisdictional conundrum within the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, focusing on the authority of consolidation bodies to correct clerical errors via Section 42-A after a closure notification under Section 52. The legal limbo, currently before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, has created widespread uncertainty, impeding thousands of landowners' access to effective legal recourse.
The analysis delves into two conflicting interpretations: the "purposive interpretation," which asserts that Section 52 mandates a complete transfer of jurisdiction to revenue authorities for finality; and the "beneficial interpretation," which posits that Section 42-A's non-obstante clause grants consolidation authorities an enduring, albeit limited, power to correct minor errors. This perspective is grounded in principles of equity and judicial efficiency.
Highlighting a deep-seated jurisprudential schism, the article concludes by urging for a definitive judicial resolution. It advocates for an approach that leverages the specialized knowledge of the original authorities while concurrently addressing administrative shortcomings, thereby ensuring that justice remains an accessible and not a privileged right for all citizens.
