Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Anurag Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Ramesh Pundir, counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent, Mr. Avinash Chandra Srivastava, counsel for respondent No.4-Gram Sabha and Mr. Anurag Dubey, Counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated at the complaint of respondent No.5 filed on 21.07.2011 to record plot No. 297/0.87 Acre as pond, the same was registered as Case No.5 of 2011-12 (Ashok Kumar v. State) under Section-33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act with respect to the plot No.297/0.87 acre. Petitioner is claiming himself to be in possession of plot No.297 since the time of his ancestor as such petitioner filed his impleadment application in the case under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. In the proceeding under Section 33 /39 of U.P Land Revenue Act, two reports were submitted by revenue authorities to the effect that plot No.297/0.87 acre is recorded as Navin Parti. Up-Zila Adhikari without considering the report of revenue inspector passed the order dated 23.08.2012 to record the plot No.297/0.87 acre as pond after expunging the entry of Navin Par
A recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their entry is expunged under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, affirming the principles of natural justice.
Proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary and cannot decide disputed title. Revisional Court's jurisdiction limited to issues raised before Assistant Collector. Dispu....
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot expunge long-standing land entries; proper judicial recourse is required for ownership disputes.
All orders passed in proceedings must be implemented in revenue records, underscoring that remand orders do not exempt implementation requirements.
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.
Once consolidation proceedings are finalized, no further orders can be issued under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, especially regarding title disputes.
The Board of Revenue improperly set aside the Tehsildar's decision regarding land succession rights, failing to respect established jurisdictional boundaries.
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
