SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2505

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Shaktinath Mani – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner (Judicial) – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: A.P. Singh, Akhilanand Mishra
For the Respondent: C.S.C., A.B.N.Tripathi, Sudhir Bharti

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Mr. A.P. Singh and Mr. Akhilanand Mishra, learned Counsels for the petitioners, Mr. A.B.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for private respondent nos. 4 to 12, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhir Bharti for respondent no.3, Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated in the year 1999 at the instance of father of respondent nos. 4 to 7 as well as respondent nos. 11 and 12 for correction of map which was initially registered as case No. 31 of 1999 and finally registered as case No. 588 of 2003 in respect to plot Nos. 100, 154, 156 and 157 situated in Village Shankarpura Tappa- Haveli, Pargana- Salempur Majhauli, Tehsil- Bhatparani District- Deoria impleading the petitioners' grandfather in the aforementioned proceeding. In the aforementioned proceeding, a report has been submitted by Revenue Inspector on 18.8.1999 in which area of plot No. 157 shown to be in excess by 0.10 dismil and area of plot Nos. 152, 153, 154 and 155 shown to be in excess by 6.1/2 dismil. Another report was submitted on 9.1.2003 by the Revenue Inspecto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top