Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Sahid Jamal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. R.C.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No-5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent No-1 to 4.
2. Respondent No-6 is stated to be proforma respondent, as such, notice to respondent No-6 is dispensed with.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard & disposed of finally without inviting Counter-affidavit.
4. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot Nos-959, 960, 976, 977, 991,992, 1001/1, 1069, 1071,1075, 1077, 1072/1, 1078, 1079, 1106, 1121, 1125 & 988 total area 1.5050 hectare situated in Mauja-Sarahu, Pergana & Tehsil-Mau Nath Bhajan, District-Mau. According to petitioners, the family pedigree of petitioner's family is a under:-
According to respondent No-5, her family pedigree was as under:-
According to respondent No-5 petitioner are stranger to her family and the family pedigree of petitioners' is as follows:-
According to petitioners, Iliyas has expired on 14.3.2001 but according to respondent
The court emphasized that mutation proceedings must adhere to legal principles and fair hearing, setting aside arbitrary decisions made by lower authorities.
Mutation proceedings - There is no finding recorded either by Appellate Court or by Revisional Court as to who was in actual possession of property in question and therefore liable to pay revenue to ....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
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 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.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
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
