Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Sumitra Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.
3. Present petition has been filed for following main reliefs :
4. While considering the prayer sought, this Court, from the order sheet of the case in issue, noticed that on several dates, orders were not scribed, as required under the law and for stereotyped order(s) on order sheet fixing next date the rubber stamp seal was used.
5. It also transpires from the record that initially mutation case was filed in the year 2012 and thereafter, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.01.2018 and for the purpose of restoration of the case, the appl
The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies has been held to be a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and existence of an alternate remedy would not divest the High Court of its powers under ....
The Tehsildar's order in mutation proceedings is appealable under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, not revisable under Section 210.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Mutation entries do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes; disputes over title must be resolved in civil court.
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
