Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Rakesh Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sashi Kant Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and Mr. Abhishek Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.8.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the Jild bandobast of 1872, plot Nos. 436, 437 and 438 situated in Mauza Kodar, Azmatpur, Mohal Tappa-Athausi, Pargana-Nizamabad, Tehsil-Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh were recorded in the name of Rambaksh, Parti Kadeem, Ahata Sthan-Sangat. With the passage of time, plot Nos. 251 and 252 were created from plot nos. 437 and 436. Plot nos. 248, 249, 251 and 252 were situated within Z.A. area. In the Jild bandobast of 1349 plot nos. 248/158, 249/168, 250 and 251 were recorded in the name of Rama Bibi widow of Govind Charan Khatri. After death of Rama Bibi, her son Dharamveer was recorded over the aforementioned plot nos. 248/158, 249/160, 250 and 251. Plot in dispute was purchased by predecessor in interest of the petitioner by way of registered sale deed executed on 13.01.1982 by recorded tenure holder
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
Natural justice mandates that parties must be afforded a hearing before their entries are expunged from revenue records, regardless of allegations of fraud.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot expunge long-standing land entries; proper judicial recourse is required for ownership disputes.
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
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.
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....
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
