Back
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Mohd Muslim – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. On an oral prayer, counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the array of parties.
2. Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Surendra Kumar Chaubey holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh Parmar, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6.
3. The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 20.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 2, Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in Revision No. 1369 of 2022 (Computer Case No. C202202000001369), Mohd. Salim and another Vs. Mohd. Muslim and others, under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 [the Revenue Code].
4. The factual matrix of the case, as laid down in the writ petition, is as follows.
5. The petitioners herein claim to be tenure holders of land bearing arazi no. 410 situate at Village Beli Kachhar, Phaphamau, Prayagraj and that their names are duly recorded in the revenue records.
6. It is stated that in regard to the land in question there have been litigations between the petitioners and the private respondents, in the past. Reference
A revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code is not maintainable unless the impugned order constitutes a 'suit or proceeding decided'.
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 the appealability of an order rejecting an application for temporary injunction under Section 146 of the Revenue Code, and its non-revisability und....
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....
Appellate courts must provide reasoned judgments addressing all grounds raised in appeals to ensure justice and proper application of law.
Revision petitions against ad-interim orders are not maintainable under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, as such orders are not 'decided cases'.
Revision – Law mandates maintainability of revision petition only in a “decided” case by subordinate revenue court where no appeal lies and secondly, on the ground of jurisdictional error committed b....
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 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
