Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Mata Badal – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Sri. S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act stating that they were tenant of the plot in question since before the date of vesting according they became sirdar and continued in possession, as such, they acquired right under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The plaint case was also to the effect that petitioners were recorded as occupant in 1356 Fasli over plot in question and remained in cultivatory possession in 1359 fasli, as such, petitioners had acquired adhivasi right in respect to plot in question. Gaon Sabha filed a suit against the petitioners which was dismissed on 1.11.1965 with liberty to Gaon Sabha to file regular suit. Gaon Sabha also initiated a proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was dropped. In suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, State of U.P. filed a
The court established that there is no limitation for filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, affirming the petitioners' continuous possession and rights over the disputed lan....
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
Suits under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are of special character with no limitation for filing, and findings of fact by the trial Court were upheld.
The Board of Revenue's judgment setting aside trial court findings was arbitrary, lacking proper legal basis and factual consideration, thus the trial court's decree was affirmed.
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
The longstanding possession of defendants as bhumidhars cannot be disregarded, and the Board of Revenue must adhere to factual findings of lower courts in its second appellate jurisdiction.
The Court upheld that the relevant date for determining land rights is the date of vesting, and concurrent findings of authorities should not be disturbed unless proven to be perverse.
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
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
