Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Mohd. Raza – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 to 15 and Mr. Dhananjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the khasara no.53 was owned by Beni Madhav son of Jagannath Prasad Dubey, who executed a sale deed on 8.10.1971 in favour of the petitioner- Mohd. Raza in respect to the khasara no.53 area 2-17-15 situated in Village- Hatwa, Tahsil- Dumeriyaganj, District-Basti now Siddharth Nagar. On the basis of aforementioned sale deed petitioner - Mohd. Raza came in possession of the aforementioned khasara no.53 and the name was accordingly, recorded in khatauni of 1378 fasli-1380 fasli. The aforementioned Beni Madhav has expired later on and in his place the name of his three sons, namely, Harish Chandra, Girish Chandra and Krishna Chandra were recorded in the revenue records. The Uttar Pradesh Act No.18 of 1973 had came into force w.e.f. 8.6.1973. Notice on C.L.H. Form No.4 had been issued to all the three legal heirs of Beni Madhav to show cause as to why the
The court ruled that a sale deed executed before the relevant date is protected under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, and failure to serve notice invalidates surplus lan....
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court did not have valid or sufficient grounds for rejecting the revised choice indicated by the petitioner because the choice can be revised till such time his....
The court held that valid sale deeds executed before the appointed date under the Ceiling Act must be considered, and notices issued post-death of the tenure holder are invalid.
The court established that land transfers made after the reference date under the Ceiling Act are not valid for determining surplus land, and the burden of proof regarding the classification of land ....
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act does not permit retroactive scrutiny of land transfers pre-dating statutory cut-off; failure to follow judicial precedents constitutes a breach of natural j....
Third-party objections regarding surplus land must be adjudicated on merits, recognizing unchallenged decrees and continuous possession as valid evidence despite procedural technicalities.
Notice to tenure holder - Limitation - Ceiling area and surplus area - If a land has come to be held by a tenure holder under Section 29, Prescribed Authority shall proceed to determine ceiling area ....
Authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Ceiling Act must prove surplus claims with adequate evidence; failure to adhere to principles of natural justice and misclassification of land holdings rendered th....
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
