Back
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Shivpujan Das Chela Siyaram Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents 1 to 4. Shri Harish Chandra Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent no. 5 while Shri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel has appeared for respondent nos. 6 & 7.
2. The writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings and the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1642 of 2022 (Mukesh Das vs. Hari Das Chela Siyaram Das) has been questioned. By the impugned order the preliminary objection of the petitioner regarding the maintainability of the Revision in view of the provisions of Section 35 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 has been rejected and further date has been fixed for hearing on the admission of the Revision.
3. The dispute relates to Gata numbers 19 Kh, 137, 102 B, 106, 136 Kha, 19 K, 105 Kh, 151, 170 Kh, contained in Khata No. 83 of the village Bheeti Mafi, Pargana Mahli Purab, Tehsil Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, total area 2.3550 Hectare as also property part of Khata No. 44 i.e. Gata No.
The Tehsildar's order in mutation proceedings is appealable under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, not revisable under Section 210.
Writ petitions against mutation orders are maintainable if they violate natural justice or are issued without jurisdiction, reaffirming the need for proper procedural adherence in land revenue matter....
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....
Delay in filing a mutation application raises doubts about its legitimacy, especially when previous claims have already been adjudicated and dismissed.
Mutation proceedings do not confer title, and substantive rights must be established in a competent civil court.
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 court emphasized the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the need for valid mutations in land disputes.
The court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision, ruling that the Naib Tehsildar acted within jurisdiction and the petitioner's claims were dismissed due to lack of grounds for recall.
Mutation proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code serve summary fiscal purposes and do not confer or determine substantive property rights; thus, challenges under writ jurisdiction are generally not maint....
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
