Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Mahendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, Allahabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Varma and Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Krishna Mohan, Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3-Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are petitioners filed two suits under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act on the basis of lease deed executed in their favour by the erstwhile Zamindar on 22.6.1948 in respect of Khata No. 38 area 10.04 acres. Another suit was filed by Ayodhya. Suits were dismissed by the trial Court against which two appeals were filed i.e. Appeal Nos. 798/312 and 398/213 (Mahendra Singh vs. Gaon Sabha and Others). Additional Commissioner vide separate judgment dated 29.8.1984 dismissed both the appeals. Petitioner no. 1 as well as father of the petitioner no. 2 filed two second appeals which were numbered as Second Appeal No. 3 and 4 of 1984-85. Board of Revenue vide judgment and order dated 11.7.1990 allowed both the appeals and decreed both the suits. Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. were parties to the suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and they had full notice and knowledge of the entire proce
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....
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
Review proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal; they must adhere strictly to legal standards, allowing for correction of apparent errors only, not retrials of decisions.
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.
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.
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
The Additional Commissioner lacks the statutory authority to review his own orders under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, leading to the annulment of subsequent orders.
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
