SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI
Akeedan – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari and Sri Diwakar Prasad Tiwari, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Sri H.N. Singh, leaned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jayant Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 15.3.2023 and dated 6.2.2023, passed by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad (respondent No. 2) and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sambhal (respondent No. 3), respectively.
3. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that admittedly the properties bearing Khata No. 77, plot No. 34/0.059 hectare, Khata No. 233 plot No. 173/0.146, Khata No. 235 plot No. 177/0.425 and Khata No. 236 plot No. 175A/0.032 and plot No. 176/0.016, total 0.048 from two plots and plot No. 175B/0.028, 176B/0.012 hectare total 0.040 from two plots situated at Mohalla Chaudhary Sarai, District Sambhal and Khata No. 81 plot No. 208/5/1.967 situated in Village Sher Khan Sarai and Khata No. 43 plot No. 34/0.623 situated at Bhawani Das Sarai,
Anand Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others
B.S. Sheshagiri Setty and others v. State of Karnataka and others
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) by LRs. (1997) 7 SCC 137
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. (2019) 3 SCC 191
Charan Singh v. State of U.P. and others
Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Lakshmi Prashad v. Commissioner (Judicial) Varanasi Region and others
Madhav Pandey and others v. Board of Revenue and others
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra
Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar
Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K
S.K. Kashyap and others v. State of Rajasthan
Smt. Hadisul Nisha v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad and others
Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue and others
State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another
Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner
T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha
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 ruled that an appeal under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code is subject to revision under Section 210, emphasizing the supervisory role of the Board or Commissioner over subor....
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 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.
The right to appeal or revise under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains intact for suits filed before the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing that such rights are substant....
Objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so results in waiver; appeals under the UP Revenue Code must follow the prescribed procedures, and jurisdictio....
Mutation proceedings - There is no finding recorded either by Appellate Court or by Revisional Court as to who was in actual possession of property in question and therefore liable to pay revenue to ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.