Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Shashi Kant – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Ms. Jyoti Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Shyam Lal Yadav/Sri. Aprajit Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6, the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh for respondent No.3/Gram Panchayat.
2. Brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act") was filed by Ramdei (mother of respondent No - 5 & 6) under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect to plot no.195M, area 0.384 hect., situated at village Gopalpur Taluka Kodh, Pargana Bhadohi, Tahsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi impleading one Mridula Devi, Gram Panchayat & state as defendant. The aforementioned suit was decreed in ex parte manner vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2020 for recording the name of respondent No.5 &6 over plot No.195 M area 0.293 hectare. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 25.8.2020 recall/restoration application dated 22.7.2021 along with prayer for condonation of delay supported with affidavit was filed by the petitioners (Sons of Mridula Devi) which was allowed vi
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
Ejectment orders must follow proper procedure, including adequate hearing and survey, and appeals should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and governed by their own procedural provisions, and the general procedural r....
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
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 court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of long-pending suits under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, affirming that delays in restoration applications can be dismissed on grounds of limitati....
A stranger to the proceeding has no right to file a recall application against a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a compromise.
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
