Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Shaileshwar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Virendra Singh, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.
3. Brief facts of the case are that plot No.279 area 3.11 acre was recorded in the khatauni of 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli in the name of Gokul Chand, Joti Bhushan, Bandhu Nandu s/o Jhuri, Chunni Lal s/o Bhondu, Birju s/o Rengai and they were shown in possession also. After abolition of zamindari, Bandhu, Nandu, Chunni, Birju became sirdar and later on bhumidhar of the plot in dispute. Accordingly, Shiv Lal s/o Bandhu, Harishchand s/o Nandu, Uma Shankar, Ram Narain minor s/o Nandu and Smt Parmeshwari Devi w/o Chunni, Birju s/o of Raengai, Ram Nath s/o Munni were recorded as bhumidhar of Plot No.279 area 3.11 acre. The aforesaid tenure holder have executed a registered sale deed in favour of Jaggan s/o Ram Singh petitioners' father on 26.10.1966. Accordingly, petitioners' father became bhumidhar of the sai
All orders passed in proceedings must be implemented in revenue records, underscoring that remand orders do not exempt implementation requirements.
The Board of Revenue must provide adequate reasoning in its orders; a cryptic order is unsustainable in law.
The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
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.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot expunge long-standing land entries; proper judicial recourse is required for ownership disputes.
The Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide revisions on merit under the U.P. Land Revenue Act post-amendment, without needing to refer to the Board of Revenue.
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
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
