Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Om Prakash Misra – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division Ayodhya – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents no.1, 2 & 5, Shri. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4/Gaon Sabha, and Shri. Anand Dubey & Shri. Prashant Dubey, learned counsels for the private-respondent no. 3.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.05.2018, Annexure No. 2 to the petition, passed by the respondent no.2/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bheeti, District Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. T-20170446705572 (Shreeprakash v. Jashraj and Ors.) registered under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Code, 2006").
3. Vide order dated 29.05.2018, the respondent no. 2 allowed the application dated 11.08.2017 for recall of order dated 10.08.2017 preferred by the respondent no.3/Shree Prakash on 27.10.2017 and also the application dated 29.05.2018 for recall of order dated 10.08.2017 preferred by the the respondent no.4/Gaon Sabha and set aside the order dated 10.08.2017, whereby the restoration application dated 20.04.2016 preferred by one Shree Prakash (respondent no. 3) on 26.07.2016 was dismissed for wan
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
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.
Rights of gram panchayat - There is no absolute right given to Gram Panchayat with regard to ownership of property and that vesting is only confined to direction, management and control and that too,....
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 recall of benefits granted under Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is impermissible without following proper legal procedures.
The judgment establishes the importance of considering the rights and protections provided to agricultural laborers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Section 122-B(4-F) of the ....
Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.
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....
Deeming provision under Section 122-B(4-F) confers bhumidhar rights on eligible Scheduled Caste landless labourers; ex-parte recalls invalid; no revision against such orders or restorations thereof.
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
