Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Sahab Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. kedar Nath Mishra holding brief of Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastva, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state respondents and Mr. Deepak Gaur, learned Counsel for respondent No.3/Land Management Committee.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plot Nos-258/7 area 0.405 hectare, 134/3 area 0.709 hectare, 360/2 are 0.069 hectare, 28/3 area 0.061 hectare, 32/2 area 0.142 hectare, 32/2 area 0.522 hectare, 257/3 area 0.364 hectare, 34/2 area 0.563 hectare, total 10 plots, area 3.766 hectare of Khata No.273 situated in village-Baraudia Rine, Pergana-Lalitpur, Tahsil-Pali, District-Lalitpur belong to one Durjan. The family pedigree of Durjan will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-
Smt. Harbu daughter of Mulla filed a Suit under Section-229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A & L.R., Act) for declaration that she is co-sharer of the plot in dispute which was registered as Case No.176 of 1982-83/207 of 1987-88. The trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 25.2.1988 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Respondent No.4/Rajdhar challenged the j
Parties not involved in a second appeal lack standing to challenge the Board of Revenue's decision regarding land ownership.
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
Co-sharers must prove joint acquisition to claim rights in property; appeals filed after significant delays are not maintainable.
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
The Board of Revenue's judgment setting aside trial court findings was arbitrary, lacking proper legal basis and factual consideration, thus the trial court's decree was affirmed.
The longstanding possession of defendants as bhumidhars cannot be disregarded, and the Board of Revenue must adhere to factual findings of lower courts in its second appellate jurisdiction.
Appellate courts must adhere to procedural correctness and cannot arbitrarily overturn lower court findings; due process is essential in adjudicating land rights based on historical claims.
The court upheld the trial court's finding that the unregistered will deed was forged, affirming the ancestral property rights of both sons as co-tenure holders.
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
