Back
JAYANT BANERJI
Pradeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue U. P. At Allahabad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case taken up for final disposal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. writ petition against order from board of revenue (Para 3) |
| 3. contention on review of prior order (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. different members issued conflicting orders (Para 6) |
| 5. opposition due to ex-parte nature of previous order (Para 7) |
| 6. review powers outlined by u.p. land revenue act (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. quashing of recent order due to jurisdictional issues (Para 10) |
| 8. writ petition allowed, no opinion on entitlement (Para 11 , 12) |
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 b
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against a non-meritorious permit to withdraw, as the underlying assistant collector's order remained unchallenged.
Judicial review is appropriate when administrative bodies fail to engage substantively with evidence and legal arguments, especially in cases involving alleged patent illegalities.
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 mutation in land revenue cannot be cancelled without addressing and potentially invalidating prior orders, ensuring procedural integrity.
The Board of Revenue must provide adequate reasoning in its orders; a cryptic order is unsustainable in law.
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
