Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 & 9, Mr. Rahul Kumar Tyagi learned counsel for respondent No. 7, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 Nagar Nigam and Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Swaroop S/o Buddhan was recorded as Bumidhar in respect to Khasra No. 59 area 0.3430 hectare (old Khasra No. 38) situated at village Noor Nagar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut. Swaroop had executed a sale deed in favour of Devan Singh on 11.06.1962 accordingly, the name of Devan Singh was recorded in the revenue record vide order dated 18.04.1967 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No. 2822 of 1967. An agreement to sale was executed by Devan Singh in favour of one Raj Bahadur and Smt. Shanti Devi on 20.01.1979. Shanti Devi and Raj Bahadur instituted a suit No. 456 of 1985 for specific performance of contract, which was decreed in favour of Shanti Devi and Raj Bahadur vide judgmethe mobile fell on the ground and was broken and two such, mis
The court affirmed that prior adjudications in consolidation proceedings are binding, and the petitioners' claims lacked legal basis under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
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 reinforced that administrative decisions must consider ongoing civil proceedings and legal injunctions, ensuring maintainability assessments align with established legal provisions.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot expunge long-standing land entries; proper judicial recourse is required for ownership disputes.
The suit was held to be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act as the disputed land was recorded as Navin Parti during consolidation operation and the plaintiff did not take any steps to correct th....
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.
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
