Back
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Vatika Grah Gram Samiti Allahabad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) :
Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shir Azad Rai, learned counsel representing the Gaon Sabha.
3. Certain orders were passed under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 on 24.2.2020 and 28.7.2022.
4. This Court passed the following interim order dated 6.1.2023 in Writ C No. 211 of 2023 (Vatika Grah Gram Samiti Allahabad v. Commissioner Prayagraj Division and 7 others), staying the effect and operation of the aforesaid orders as well as directing that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute:
Counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the writ petition in respect to prayer No. C as such writ petition is being entertained in respect of prayer Nos. A &B.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section 38 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated on the basis of ex parte report and within
The court established that expunging entries from revenue records without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
Natural justice mandates that parties must be afforded a hearing before their entries are expunged from revenue records, regardless of allegations of fraud.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
A recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their entry is expunged under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, affirming the principles of natural justice.
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
The court established that revenue entries must be corrected following the abatement of prior proceedings, regardless of the section under which the application was made.
A party must disclose all relevant prior proceedings when filing a suit; failure to do so results in the suit being deemed not maintainable.
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
