Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Mahendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Mr. V.K. Ojha, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5.
2. In the present case, father of the contesting respondent nos.4 and 5 has filed a suit under Section 38(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (in short ‘the Code’) for correction of errors in the records of rights i.e. Khatauni. The said suit was contested by the present petitioner and the same was allowed by a reasoned order dated 28.5.2016 and entries made in the name of present petitioner was expunged and name of the contesting respondents were directed to be entered.
3. It is not in much dispute that there was no challenge to said order at the instant of the petitioner. Accordingly, it has attained finality and claim of the present petitioner on basis of a sale-deed in regard to the land in dispute was rejected so far as correction of record was concerned.
4. The petitioner concealing details of above referred proceedings as well as its out come has subsequently filed a suit under Section 144 of the Code on 3.11.2016 and claimed land in dispute on basis of a p
A party must disclose all relevant prior proceedings when filing a suit; failure to do so results in the suit being deemed not maintainable.
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.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
The pendency of proceedings under one provision does not bar actions under another; purely legal questions can be heard despite available alternative remedies.
Where khatedari rights are yet to be determined/declared, a party has to first approach Revenue Courts.
A revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code is not maintainable unless the impugned order constitutes a 'suit or proceeding decided'.
A suit challenging property ownership based on historical wills is barred by limitation if not filed within the statutory period, especially when the plaintiff is aware of prior legal challenges.
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
