Back
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Abhiraj Singh – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Agra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition has been instituted to quash the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer dated 29.12.1997 and order dated 5.5.1998 passed by Additional Commissioner.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that respondent no. 5 and 6 filed a suit under Section 229 -B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was dismissed in default on 4.8.1993. It was again dismissed in default on 7.11.1994. (Annexure No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition). Thereafter, respondent nos. 5 & 6 moved the restoration application which was rejected by Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 25.6.1996 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition). Later on they filed a review petition for recalling the order dated 25.6.1996 which was allowed by order dated 29.12.1997 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) without serving notice to the petitioner.
3. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision before respondent no.1. Generally revisions are being admitted by the Commissioner and hence only on stay application case was heard on 20.1.1998. Neither it was heard on the point of maintainability nor on the merit. Records of the courts below were also not summoned and records were not available before respondent no.1 w
The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of long-pending suits under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, affirming that delays in restoration applications can be dismissed on grounds of limitati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory scope and purpose of Section 333 of the Act, 1950 is to be availed only in those situations where no appeal lies or where an app....
The maintainability of revisions must be assessed before summoning records, and original records are essential for deciding revisions under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
The court emphasized that once a legal revision is entertained, subsequent orders should not arbitrarily modify prior orders, maintaining the integrity of due process.
A revisional court's proper exercise of jurisdiction cannot be arbitrarily changed once proceedings have been entertained, reinforcing the need for procedural fairness.
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
