Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Deo Nayak - Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 57 OF 2024.
Decided On : 19-01-2024
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, learend Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents no. 1 to 3, Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and and Sri Avneesh Kumar Shukla, learend counsel for caveator/Ram Swaroop.
2. In view of order proposed to be passed this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent no. 4, who is the real brother of respondent no. 5/Ram Swaroop and on whose behalf admittedly an application with a prayer to recall of final order dated 20.08.2007 passed in the case instituted under Section 229B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950") and restore the same to its original number was filed by the respondent no. 5 and to the view of this Court even on appearance the respondent no. 4 would not be in position to dispute the facts and in view of the order proposed to be passed the matter would be heard and decided on merits and accordingly, the notice to respondent no. 4 is dispensed with and with the consent of the Counsel for the parties who are present before this Court this petition is being decided at admission stage.
3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.12.2023, certified copy of which is Annexure No. 15 to the petition, passed by the respondent no. 1/Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue at Lucknow in Case No. REV/1862/2023/Sultanpur, Computerized Case No. R20230468001862, (Deo Nayak v. Ram Swaroop). Under challenge is also the order dated 28.06.2023, certified copy of which is Annexure No. 14 to the petition, passed by the respondent no.2/Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in the Case No. 01296 of 2020, Computerized Case No. C202004000001296 (Ram Swaroop v. Deo Nayak).
4. Both the orders were passed in the revision instituted under Section 333 of the Act of 1950.
5. The Revision No. 01296 of 2020 was filed by the respondent no. 5 assailing the order dated 23.11.2020 which was passed by the revenue Court of first instance namely Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baldirai, Sultanpur (in short "SDO") in a suit instituted under Section 229B of the Act of 1950 registered as Case No. 17/88/2009-2010, Computerized Case No. 20100468656 (Deo Nayak v. Gaon Sabha) and in this revision, the order dated 28.06.2023 was passed.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2023, the petitioner -Deo Nayak, who was opposite party in the Revision No. 01296 of 2020, filed the revision before Board of Revenue registered as Case No. REV/1862/2023/Sultanpur.
7. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are to the effect that based upon the plea of adverse possession, a suit was instituted under Section 229B of the Act of 1950 by the petitioner for declaration of his rights over Gata No. 981/Area 0.444 hectare sitauted at Village- Kutta, Pargana - Baronsa, Tehsil- Baldirai, District- Sultanpur and the suit, thereafter, was decreed on 20.08.2007 in terms of the compromise by the SDO.
8. Thereafter, an application dated 21.12.2009 for restoration of case was preferred on 21.12.2009 before SDO by respondent no. 5/Ram Swaroop and this application dated 21.12.2009, application for restoration of the case, was allowed vide order dated 15.04.2010 by SDO.
9. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2010 passed by SDO, an application for recall of order dated 15.04.2010 was filed by the petitioner and it appears from the record that SDO rejected the said application for want of prosecution vide order dated 21.01.2013 and the same was restored vide order dated 17.02.2014 passed by SDO.
10. Thereafter, the application for recall of order dated 15.04.2010, whereby the case/suit was restored, was allowed vide order dated 23.11.2020 passed by SDO. The operative portion of the order dated 2
A party claiming adverse possession must demonstrate peaceful, open, and continuous possession, and the court emphasized the necessity for the suit to be adjudicated on merits.
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
The necessity of framing substantial questions of law in second appeals is mandated, and mere long-term possession does not equate to adverse possession without requisite proofs of hostility.
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....
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not determine title; a registered sale deed remains valid until annulled by a competent court.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot resolve disputed title and possession over land; civil suit is appropriate remedy. Section 23(1)(a) of U.P. Zamindari Act bars recognition of post-1948 tran....
The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
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
