Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Bankey Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Akhtar Ali, holding brief of Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4/Gram Sabha.
2. With the consent of the parties, matter is being heard and disposed of without inviting counter affidavit.
3. Brief facts of the case are that plot number 38/3 area 0.194 hectare situated in Village-Chatdang @ Baldevpur, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Pilibhit was initially recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as Navin Parti. Petitioner belongs to schedule caste community/ category and was landless agricultural labourer. Petitioner remained in possession over the plot No.38/3 accordingly petitioner was granted benefit of Section 122 -B(4F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act vide order dated 20.07.2010 as such petitioner was recorded as bhumidhari with non-transferable right in Class- 6(2) Category. Petitioner applied for recording his name as bhumidhar with transferable right, after expiry of required period, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed by UP-Ziladhikari, Tehsil-Sadar,
The established rights of a party should not be undermined by arbitrary state actions or prolonged restoration proceedings, especially when prior orders have not been set aside.
The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to Bhumidhar rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, emphasizing the importance of recognizing statutory protections for marginalized community memb....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an asami to be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right if the land is not covered under Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue ....
Only land transferred in violation of the law vests with the State, preserving the rights of the bhumidhar for other plots.
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
The court held that procedural irregularities cannot undermine established substantive rights, affirming the petitioners' status as Bhumidars with transferable rights.
The recall of benefits granted under Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is impermissible without following proper legal procedures.
The court upheld the rights of agricultural laborers under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Act, ruling that the disputed plots were not acquired by the State, thus confirming their status as....
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
