Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Jadunath – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding the suit filed. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against petitioner’s claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's reasoning on implementation of judgment. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final determination and directive to record name. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Pavan Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and the Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondent.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for mandamus, commanding/directing respondent no.2 to decide the application dated 16.10.2017, filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 17.10.1995, passed by respondent no.2 in Case No.57/1994-95, under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. S L.R. Act, in respect to plot no.624, area 0.484 hect., plot no.727, area 0.572 hect. and plot no.756, area 1.242 hect. (3 plots), situated in village Ahmadpur, Pargana and Tehsil-Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, within the stipulated period.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a Suit No.57/1994-95, under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. S L.R. Act, impleading the State and the Gaon Sabha as defendants in respect to the aforesaid three plots
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
Co-sharers must prove joint acquisition to claim rights in property; appeals filed after significant delays are not maintainable.
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.
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.
Appellate courts must adhere to procedural correctness and cannot arbitrarily overturn lower court findings; due process is essential in adjudicating land rights based on historical claims.
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....
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
