Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Devidas Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for correcting revenue entry (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding alternative remedies (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. no appearance from private respondents (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's analysis of dismissal (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. guidance of section 38 of u.p. revenue code (Para 11 , 15) |
| 6. impugned orders set aside (Para 12 , 14 , 16) |
| 7. writ petition allowed, proceeding remitted (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai J.
Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandrakesh Mishra and Mr. Abhishek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
3. This Court has entertained the matter on 11.7.2023 and passed the following order:
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
The principle of res judicata does not preclude a subsequent application for correction of land records under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Natural justice mandates that parties must be afforded a hearing before their entries are expunged from revenue records, regardless of allegations of fraud.
The court established that expunging entries from revenue records without a hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
The court established that revenue entries must be corrected following the abatement of prior proceedings, regardless of the section under which the application was made.
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....
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.
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
