Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI
Shiv Bachan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Manish Dev Singh alongwith Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsels for the respondent Nos. 4 to 22, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep SingSh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 23-Gaon Sabha.
2. The respondent Nos. 25 to 31 are the proforma respondents. As they are the plaintiffs in the Suit in question alongwith the petitioners as such, notice is not necessarily required to be issued to them as their claims are conjoined with the petitioners.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the present Writ Petition at the admission stage itself.
4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
The U.P. Revenue Code's provisions regarding appeals are self-contained and govern the necessity of filing documents, overriding general procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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....
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 right to avail the remedy of revision under Section 333 of the Act of 1950 survives the repeal of the Act of 1950 and, therefore, the revision is maintainable.
An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC must be disposed of before trial; failure constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting revision.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the first appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 cannot be filed against an order passed under Section 24, and the appeal can ....
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
Listen Article