Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Urban Improvement Trust Kota, Through Its Secretary UIT Kota – Appellant
Versus
Chandramohan Prasad Singh S/o Ambika Prasad Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to authority regarding land use. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. jurisdiction limits in appeals. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 3. court's observation on exceeded authority. (Para 7 , 8) |
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota as well as the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short “the Board”).
2. By passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2017, the Divisional Commissioner, Kota has set aside the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (for short “UIT”) under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”).
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Board, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 03.02.2021 by treating the same as non-maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-UIT submits that the proceedings under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 of the colony “Model Town” were carried out by the UIT in which a plot was kept vacant/reserved for Other Civil Facility/Other Computational Facility (for short “O
Authority of appellate bodies is limited by jurisdiction; exceeding this leads to nullification of their orders.
The court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings, affirming the dismissal of his application.
The court established that khatedari rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act cannot be revoked without due process, and that administrative orders lacking legal foundation are void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1975 was not maintainable as the order was passed under Section 9-A, which was non-appealable. The j....
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against a non-meritorious permit to withdraw, as the underlying assistant collector's order remained unchallenged.
Sale deeds executed without prior permission under Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act are invalid and cannot be regularized post facto.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
