Kalloo vs Board Of Revenue - 2023 Supreme(All) 2495

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2495

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Kalloo – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.K. Chaturvedi, Arvind Srivastava, Onkar Singh
For the Respondents: C.S.C., H.O.K. Srivastava, Harish Chandra Singh, Namit Srivastava, Nritinjai Pandey, P. P. Chaudhary, Prabhakar Chandel, Prem Prakash Chaudhary, V.K. Singh

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim based on inheritance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and evidence. (Para 8 , 9)
3. court's findings on factual determinations. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. reversal requires proper legal basis. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. jurisdiction to decide parentage issues. (Para 16 , 17 , 20)
6. writ petition granted; reversal of board's decision. (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prem Prakash Chaudhary, Advocate assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned Standing counsel for the State-Respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit No. 414 under Section 229 B/ 209 of U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act in respect to Plot Nos. 173, 28, 29, 30, 163, 164, 167, 169, 171, 179, 145 & 33 of Village Machhariya, Tehsil Karwi, District-Chitrakut on the ground that property in dispute has been acquired by petitioner's father Ram Dass who was the sole Bhumidhar of the plot in dispute. The further ground taken in the suit was that after death of Ram Dass Smt. Dulariya, widow of Ram Dass, re-married with Ram Kish