Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Prashant Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Sharad Chandra Uapdhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.12 Gaon Sabha and Mr. B.C. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No. 11 in Writ C No.31692 of 2022 and for respondent No.5 in Writ B No.5 in Writ C No.31612 of 2022.
2. Writ C No. 31692 of 2022 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to the outcome of civil suits regarding property rights.
Writ petitions against mutation orders are maintainable if they violate natural justice or are issued without jurisdiction, reaffirming the need for proper procedural adherence in land revenue matter....
Mutation proceedings - There is no finding recorded either by Appellate Court or by Revisional Court as to who was in actual possession of property in question and therefore liable to pay revenue to ....
Mutation proceedings are summary and do not confer title; title must be established in a regular suit.
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
