Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Iqbal Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of land dispute. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding illegal proceedings and lack of hearing. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's evaluation of proceeding and necessity of hearing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal standards and precedence on alternative remedies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final orders and directions for resolution of dispute. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr Arohi Bhalla and Mr. Shivam Yadav, counsel for respondent no. 27 and Mr. Kunal Ravi Singh, counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 26.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners along with others namely, Anwar Ahmad, Abrar Ali and Smt. Tamizan are co-sharer in the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 33 & 46. Prior to the initiation of the proceeding under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, Anwar Ahmad and four others including petitioners filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for Khasra No. 33 along-with other khasra numbers, the aforesa
The court upheld the finality of the land partition decree, confirming that all procedural safeguards were adhered to in preparing and confirming the Kurra, thus denying the petitioners' claims again....
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 in the preparation of kurra, and the necessity to consid....
A partition suit under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code is not maintainable if the petitioner is the sole recorded owner of the land.
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 Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
The preliminary decree under the U.P. Revenue Code is a final order determining the rights of parties, making it appealable despite being labeled interlocutory.
The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must adhere to procedural integrity, and any order based on false representations is void.
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
