Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Kishun Shankar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of mutation and appeal process. (Para 2) |
| 2. challenge to mutation order based on procedural issues. (Para 3) |
| 3. affirmation of validity of mutation order. (Para 4) |
| 4. examination of timeline and limitations of appeals. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. summary jurisdiction limitations on revisiting past orders. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. dismissal of writ petition but access to civil court. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Dinesh Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 8.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of unregistered Will deed dated 3.7.1973 name of Mst. Bilasi recorded tenure holder was expunged and the name of Hari Nath, father of private respondent nos.6 to 8 was ordered to be recorded by the Additional Tahsildar on 3.5.1995 in the proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Against the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 3.5.1995, restoration application dated 19.5.2005 / 7.5.2005 were filed along
Decisions on land mutation proceedings must be timely, and delays in restoring claims based on previous orders undermine legitimacy and can lead to dismissal by courts.
The court emphasized that mutation proceedings must adhere to legal principles and fair hearing, setting aside arbitrary decisions made by lower authorities.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not determine title; a registered sale deed remains valid until annulled by a competent court.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
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.
The interpretation of Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and the precedent set by the Apex Court regarding the admissibility of subsequent oral agreements to modify will deeds.
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.
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 ....
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
