Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Deo Nayak – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue U. P. – Respondent
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 w
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
