IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Iqbal Ahmad and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. and 26 Others - Respondents
WRIT C NO. 25056 OF 2019.
Decided On : 31-01-2023
| 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 aforesaid suit was numbered as Suit No. 20 of 1998-99. In the aforementioned partition suit, parties to the suit are co-sharer of various khata and plot numbers. The aforementioned partition suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2003 whereby a decree for partition was issued in respect of Khata Nos. 30, 31 & 32 and Khasra No. 33 & 46 are part of Khata No. 32. Against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2003, respondent no.3rd set filed an appeal in the Court of Commissioner, which was registered as Appeal No. 56 of 2002- 03 and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.12.2003. The judgment and decree of first appellate court was challenged before the Board of Revenue and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2004 modifying the decree to the effect that plaintiff shall be entitled to 35/95 share and defendants shall be entitled to 61/96 share. The judgment of the partition suit was challenged before this Court through Writ Petition No. 11891 of 2004 by Anwar Ahmad, which was entertained and interim order was passed to the effect that preparation of final decree may go on but final decree shall not be signed, the aforementioned writ petition is still pending before this Court. During pendency of the aforementioned writ petition before this Court, another Writ Petition No. 33310 of 2018 was filed by one Riyaz Ahmad with the prayer to demarcate and separate the Plot No. 33/1, 33/3, 33/2, 33/4, 46, 47, 48 and 49 situated at Village-Shahbad @ Mitthepur, Paragana Loni, Tehsil and District-Ghaziabad. The aforementioned Writ Petition No. 33310 of 2018 was disposed of vide order dated 03.10.2018 with a direction to the petitioners to make an application under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of two weeks and the same shall be decided within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of the application and deposit of the statutory fee with notices to all concerned parties. After passing of the order dated 03.10.2018, respondent 2nd set filed an application under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. Petitioners were not arrayed as a party in aforementioned Writ Petition No. 33310 of 2018, as such, petitioners were not aware of the aforementioned proceeding initiated by respondent 2nd set. Respondent no. 3 vide order dated 29.04.2019, allowed the application/case under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 filed by respondent 2nd set in respect to Khasra No. 33 on the basis of the report of Tehsildar dated 13.03.2019. Petitioners were not aware about the aforesaid proceeding under Section 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. However, petitioners came to know about the same when respondent 2nd set tried to interfere in possession of the peti
Committee of Management v. Vice-Chancellors 2009 (1) AWC 437 (SC)
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 6 SCC 537
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.