Sanjay Gupta
Mohd. Shafi – Appellant
Versus
Siraj Bibi – Respondent
2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds, that court below has not properly appreciated the law and so order is against facts and law. That Custodian has no power to adjudicate upon the land, as land has been deleted from the Custodian record.
3. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. Counsel for petitioners has elaborated all grounds taken in revision petition, whereas counsel for respondent has taken a preliminary stand that revision against remand order is not maintainable.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of matter.
6. Facts necessary for deciding the matter reads that, respondent herein was restored land comprising khewat no. 23/21 and 17/16 situated at village kheri on 6.7.1963 and possession of land was also given to her, which is evident from mutation no. 115 attested on 7.9. 1976.
7. It appears that mutation no 122 under section 4 of agrarian ref
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.