Back
DINESH PATHAK
Arun Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for private-respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 4.
2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.9.1975 passed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and order dated 17.8.2021 passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad rejecting the highly time barred restoration application dated 3.7.2019 filed against the order dated 30.9.1986 passed in Revision No. 106 of 1975-76/Fatehpur.
3. Facts culled out from the averment made in the writ petition are that proceeding has been initiated for realization of the loan amount as land revenue. The property of Sankata Prasad (father of present petitioners) was sold in auction sale dated 25.7.1974 in favour of Balbir (respondent no.5). Feeling aggrieved against the said auction sale, Sankata Prasad had filed objection under Section 281 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rules 285-I and 285-J of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, inter alia, on the grounds that th
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
Point of law: Conclusion reached in such a case as to the validity of the levy would apply not only to the parties before the Court but the same has to be extended to other cases where similar issue ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the limitation period of 30 days for filing an application against auction sale under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the provisions of review jurisdiction and ensuring proper consideration of the merits of a case before allowing a rev....
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
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
