Back
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Malti Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims possession of property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. issues related to possession and dispossession. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments on legality of allotment and interim orders. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. finality of dispossession order pending appeal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion and directions regarding statutory proceedings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Shri Juned Alam, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 to 7.
3. This court on 15.03.2023 passed a detailed order which is quoted hereinbelow:-
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
The court held that disputed questions of fact can be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction if they do not require elaborate evidence, emphasizing fairness in administrative actions.
Under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Section 65 empowers Sub-Divisional Officer to restore possession of allotted residential plot to scheduled caste landless labourer against encroachers even post-initial....
Administrative authorities cannot interfere in civil property disputes pending before a competent court, and dispossession must follow due process of law.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
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
