Back
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Dayali – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner (First) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 as well as Sri Ambuj Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 6.3.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 in Case No. 501/122/2013-14, Computer Case No. C20140700001122 (Dayali and others v. U.P. State), under Section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and order dated 30.10.1991 passed by respondent No. 2 in Case No. 458 and further direction be issued to expunge the name of State from Gata No. 872 area 0.595 hectare situated at Village Itawan, Tehsil Rajapur, District Chitrakoot.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that plot Nos. 872 and 3414/1 have been extended as lease way back in the year 1974 in favour of the petitioners' father and name of the father of the petitioners has been recorded in the revenue record as bhumidhar with non transferable right which is apparent from the record of rights appended with the petition. Thereafter, father of the petitioners execu
Only land transferred in violation of the law vests with the State, preserving the rights of the bhumidhar for other plots.
The established rights of a party should not be undermined by arbitrary state actions or prolonged restoration proceedings, especially when prior orders have not been set aside.
The Assistant Collector First Class is the sole authority to declare agricultural land transactions void under Section 166 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Only the Assistant Collector First Class is authorized to declare transactions void under Section 157-A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, requiring proper inquiry into caste claims before such declarati....
Improper adjudication and flawed processes in property vesting under U.P. Act rendered the vesting of property in the State unlawful, emphasizing the need for due process and fair administrative acti....
A sale deed canceled by a Civil Court prevents subsequent actions vesting the land in the State, affirming the validity of the registered sale deed in favor of the petitioner.
An Aasami lease under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is limited to a maximum of five years, and upon expiration, the rights do not transfer to heirs unless specifically provided by law. The court emphasized....
Aasami leases under U.P. law are limited to five years and cannot be inherited post-expiration, thus the petitioner had no rights over the land after the lease expired.
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
