Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Counsel for respondent no.4, Land Management Committee.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plot No.682/745 area 0.0890 Hectare (old plot No.576/6) situated at Village - Haldauni, Teshil - Dadri, District Gautam Buddh Nagar is recorded as abadi - class 6-2 and plot No.684/746 area 0.2530 Hectare situated in the aforementioned village is recorded in the name of primary school, class 6-3. Copy of the khatauni has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Petitioner's father initiated proceeding under Section 9 A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act in respect to disputed plot No. 684/746 with the prayer that the same may be recorded as abadi in the place of banjar, however, dispute has been decided against the petitioner's father but review application filed on behalf of the petitioner is pending before this Court against the judgment of Writ Court. Another proceeding under section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 initiated the instance of the petitioner's father for correction of map
The court reinforced that administrative decisions must consider ongoing civil proceedings and legal injunctions, ensuring maintainability assessments align with established legal provisions.
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including the right to be heard and the requirement for evidence to be properly substantiated.
Eviction proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code cannot proceed without proper land demarcation, and damages awarded must be based on a justified assessment.
Judicial proceedings must adhere to due process, including providing notice and opportunity to be heard, failing which decisions are invalid.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
The court affirmed that prior adjudications in consolidation proceedings are binding, and the petitioners' claims lacked legal basis under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
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
