Back
JASPREET SINGH
Ghasita – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue Lko. Thru. Secy. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Jaspreet Singh, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Pandey, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.3, as a consequence, in recall proceedings at the behest of State the principal order dated 31.07.2021 passed in favour of the petitioner has been stayed.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated by the petitioner under Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act 1901. The said proceedings were contested by the State who had also filed their written objections and a copy thereof has been brought on record as annexure no.3. It is also submitted that the respondents were delaying the proceedings and as such the respondent no.3 by means of order dated 31.07.2021 allowed the application of the petitioner.
4. The State Authorities being aggrieved preferred an application for recall on 04.12.2021 which was also acc
The court ruled that an ex parte order requires a recall application to be maintainable, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard before any interim orders are issued.
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
A stranger to the proceeding has no right to file a recall application against a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a compromise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and governed by their own procedural provisions, and the general procedural r....
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....
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The Board of Revenue can recall an order if it determines that jurisdictional requirements were not met, emphasizing the need for proper documentation to support tenancy claims under the Orissa Estat....
The primary prayer in both recall applications was substantially the recall of the order dated December 6, 2018, and the Court rejected the second recall application on the ground of constructive res....
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
