Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Orders No-Fault Vaccine Compensation Policy
11 Mar 2026
Delhi Sessions Court Upholds Conviction Under Sections 354, 354A IPC on Victim's Sole Reliable Testimony Despite No CCTV
11 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Seeks Dileep Response in 2017 Assault Appeal
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
JAYANT BANERJI
Pradeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue U. P. At Allahabad – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Jayant Banerji, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 6. Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4, Gaon Sabha. The respondent no.3 is represented by Shri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel, who has filed a vakalatnama today in Court and which is taken on record. The respondent no.5 is represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who has filed a caveat application.
2. All the parties are represented. With their consent, this case is taken up for final disposal.
3. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad.
Revenue courts cannot adjudicate the legality and validity of a registered sale deed in summary proceedings, and there are exceptions under which a Writ petition may be entertained against orders pas....
The Tehsildar's order in mutation proceedings is appealable under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, not revisable under Section 210.
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 court established that remand requires a clear finding of necessity for retrial, which must be justified by the appellate authority.
The Board of Revenue must provide adequate reasoning in its orders; a cryptic order is unsustainable in law.
The validity of a 'Will' must be established in a regular court, as mutation proceedings do not adjudicate rights or title over property.
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
Listen Article