Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Beer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue Allahabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. In the present case, a piece of land was being part of two resolutions for allotment of Patta under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which has created a controversy and matter is reached upto this Court.
2. First resolution was adopted on 11.09.1972 and number of beneficiaries were 58. It was challenged before Additional Collector, however, rejected by order dated 10.09.1973. Surprisingly, despite this writ petition is pending for last more than three decades, copy of same was not placed on record.
3. Said order was challenged before Commissioner and a reference dated 10.06.1974 was prepared, however, copy of same is also not on record. Said reference was accepted by Board of Revenue vide order dated 29.04.1977 and revision was dismissed. Copy of order was placed on record by way of filing a supplementary affidavit and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:
2. No objection has been filed against the recommendation of the Additional Commissione
The court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to protect long-held possession despite potential legal invalidity of prior resolutions.
Claims of possession based on zamindari settlements must be substantiated with evidence, particularly where consolidation proceedings have abated prior actions.
The court upheld the validity of agricultural allotment made in 1975-76, emphasizing that findings of fact by authorities require no interference unless proven perverse.
Failure to consider the delay condonation application before allowing the recall application can lead to the setting aside of the order and quashing of the revisional court's order.
The court established that residents can challenge land allotments as 'persons aggrieved' under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the importance of public interest in suc....
The cancellation of land allotment based on the violation of land transfer rules under Rule 6(3) & (4) and the authority to cancel allotment under Rule 6(10) of the Rules of 1972.
The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, finding no violations of the Rajasthan Colonisation Rules and affirming the finality of prior allotments.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and have no legal effect, emphasizing the significance of jurisdictional validity in admin....
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
