SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2209

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Gupteshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ashok Kumar Singh Yadav, Dhirendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.2 of 2023

Heard counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the instant application is allowed.

Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.

Order on Writ petition

Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Guran son of Raghunath was recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute. After death of Guran, name of contesting respondents were ordered to be recorded on the basis of Pa Ka-11 vide order dated 23.02.1990. Petitioners applied for mutation of their names only in place of recorded tenure holder Guran on the basis of succession under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The family pedigree which was given by contesting respondents in their pleading will be relevant in order or appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, which is as under:

3. Tehsildar vide order dated 09.01.1992 set aside the order dated 23.02.1990 and ordered to be record the name of petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top