Back
AJIT KUMAR
Ulfat – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ajit Kumar, J.) :
Heard Sri Saiful Islam Siddiqui and Ms. Tahira Kazmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Shashank Bhartiya, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent and Sri Ashok Kumar Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioners before this Court are aggrieved against the orders dated 4.1.2011 and 18.4.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad, whereby, in the first instance he reviewed his earlier order dated 13.3.2008 and so consequently restored the revision petition of the petitioners and then dismissing the writ petition on merits upholding the order passed by the Collector dated 28.4.2007.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners claimed to be the valid lease holders of the land in question by virtue of resolution passed by the Land Management Committee dated 12.4.1997 which stood approved by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 13.5.1997.
4. It appears that on the basis of some report submitted by Sub Divisional Officer, Sahabad dated 24.6.2006 a case came to be re
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.
The principle of limitation is fundamental in administrative proceedings, and actions taken after substantial delays are unsustainable under law.
Quasi-judicial authorities cannot exercise review powers without explicit statutory authorization, and such actions taken after substantial delays are deemed illegal.
The court established that powers under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act must be exercised within a reasonable time, and unreasonable delays invalidate such actions.
The Deputy Collector's notice issued beyond the one-year limit for calling records under the Tenancy Act was void, emphasizing the necessity of application of mind in such proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and have no legal effect, emphasizing the significance of jurisdictional validity in admin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and governed by their own procedural provisions, and the general procedural r....
The exercise of statutory authority must be within a reasonable period, and fraud vitiates all proceedings.
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
