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

2013 Supreme(All) 2579

A.P.SAHI
RAM DEEN – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER, GORAKHPUR – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
R.C. Maurya for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar learned Standing Counsel.

2. Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 provides for filing of a restoration application, if an ex parte order has been passed against a person arrayed in the proceedings. No appeal or revision will lie against such an order which is alleged to be ex parte and therefore the only remedy is to file a restoration application.

3. In the instant case, the Naib Tehsildar had passed an order whereas the restoration has been allowed by the Tehsildar. It is this part of the procedure which was questioned by the respondent in a revision which has been allowed by the learned Commissioner directing that the restoration shall be decided by the Naib Tehsildar.

4. Section 224 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 is the charging section under which the State Government confers the powers on the Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars. Section 231 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 provides that the powers of a subordinate authority can be exercised by a superior authority. The Tehsildar is admittedly a superior officer to the Naib Tehsildar.

5. It is also to be noted that the powers











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