Back
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN
Kamlesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Heard Shri Mehdi Abbas Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Ms. Seema Devi, learned counsel for the intervener assisted by Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.5/intervener. Said vakalatnama is taken on record.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.06.1999 (Annexure No. 1) passed by opposite party no. 1 by which he has remanded the revision to the Commissioner for fresh decision under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "Land Revenue Act") as it was prevailing prior to 18.08.1997.
3. While assailing the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the opposite party no.1 has committed manifest error of law in remanding back the case for fresh decision to the Commissioner in accordance with Section 218 of the Land Revenue Act as it was applicable prior to 18.08.1997. Further, since Section 218 of the Land Revenue Act has been repealed by the U.P. Act No. 20 of 1997 with effect from 18.0
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and governed by their own procedural provisions, and the general procedural r....
Once consolidation proceedings are finalized, no further orders can be issued under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, especially regarding title disputes.
The court affirmed the Chief Revenue Officer's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, ruling that remanding for fresh adjudication was an abuse of process.
There is no infirmity in order passed by learned appellate court. However petitioner cannot be denied his right to substantive justice in view of provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006.
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
The Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide revisions on merit under the U.P. Land Revenue Act post-amendment, without needing to refer to the Board of Revenue.
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.
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
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
