Back
2010 Supreme(All) 3722
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vikram Nath, J.
Indrawati and others -Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate/D.D.C.Sonbhadra and others -Respondent
Writ-B No. 63230 of 2010
Decided On : 21-10-2010
Anuj Kumar, Jitendra Prasad
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Nayab Tehsildar under section 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and the effect of the impugned orders.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - The court considered the jurisdiction of the Nayab Tehsildar to pass an order for recording the name of the tenure holders under section 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and the effect of a notification vesting such power with the Tehsildar.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner argued that the Revisional Court had discarded an order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, while the petitioner contended that the Nayab Tehsildar was fully competent to pass the order under section 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Finding of the Court:
The court admitted the case and issued notice to the respondent No. 6. It also stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) until further orders.
Issues: The jurisdiction of the Nayab Tehsildar to pass the order and the effect of the impugned orders were the key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the argument regarding the jurisdiction of the Nayab Tehsildar and the effect of the impugned orders, leading to the admission of the case and the stay of the impugned orders.
Final Decision: The court ordered the admission of the case and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned orders until further orders.
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH LAND REVENUE ACT : S.15
Connect with Writ Petition No. 48712 of 2010.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Anuj Kumar, Advocate representing the respondent No. 5 may file counter affidavit within a month.
4. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Revisional Court has discarded the order dated 1.8.1953, passed by the Nayab Tehsildar on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order whereas in fact under law the Nayab Tehsildar was fully competent to pass the said order for recording the name of the tenure holders under section 15 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as by way of notification made on 6.6.1953 such power vested with the Tehsildar.
5. Admit.
6. Issue notice to the respondent No. 6. Steps may be taken within a week.
7. Till further orders of this Court the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 14.7.2010, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sonbhadra (Respondent No. 1) as also the order dated 20.1.2004, passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Sonbhadra (Respondent No. 2) shall remain stayed.
Ordered Accordingly.
