Back
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Satya Narayan Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State respondents, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel representing the Respondent no. 4 and Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 5.
3. The writ petition has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli, in Case No. 674 of 2023 in Appeal under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the Appeal preferred by the petitioner through the Gram Sabha concerned against the order dated 01.07.2023 passed by the Tehsildar, respondent no. 3 has been rejected and the order dated 01.07.2023 dropping the proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 against the respondent no. 5 has been upheld.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is a complainant on whose instance proceedings under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated against
A complainant may maintain a writ petition under Section 67 (5) of the UP Revenue Code if they are aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeal, but the merits of the case must support their claims for....
Point of law: A bare reading of sub-section (5) shows that any ‘person’ may be the ‘party’ or may not be a party can maintain an appeal if he is aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Collector un....
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Proper measurement and due process are essential in eviction proceedings, as statutory compliance safeguards against arbitrary actions by the authorities.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including the right to be heard and the requirement for evidence to be properly substantiated.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.
Possession of public utility land does not confer rights; damages must be calculated according to legal standards.
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
