SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(All) 160

PANKAJ MITHAL
MATHURA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Dinesh Prasad for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

Pankaj Mithal, J.

In proceedings under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 an order was passed directing for deletion of name of the petitioner Mathura against gata no. 557 area 0.1250 and gata no. 558 Kha area 0.0650 hectare and to record the name of the tenure holder as it appeared earlier. This order was passed on 2.12.1991. Petitioner applied for recall of the aforesaid order. On the recall application, the order was recalled on 17.2.1992 but no reason for recalling was given in the order. The appeal of respondent no. 5 against the aforesaid order was allowed on the ground that the order has been passed without there being any material to show any right of the petitioner over the land in dispute. The revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.

Challenging the above orders petitioner has come up in this writ petition and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute for the last over 15 years. Therefore, his name is liable to be recorded in the revenue records.

Section 54 of the Act provides for the disposal of disputes regarding entries in the annual register as specified under Section 33 of t















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top