Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Krishna Gopal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges revision order (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for and against revisional authority's decision (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's assessment of order compliance and reasoning (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. conclusion with dismissal of petition (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Heard.
2. By means of present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.2, in Revision No. 2285 of 2015, Computerized Case No.C- 201504002285 (Jaibul Nisha & Others v. Krishna Gopal & Others) filed under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901").
3. It is stated that proceedings for correction of map were initiated under Section 28 of the Act of 1901, which was registered as Case No.473/315/146/90/56 (14-15), Computerized Case No. D-200904120073 (Krishna Gopal v. Jaibulnisha & Others). The respondent No.3/Collector/District Magistrate, Barabanki vide its order dated 20.05.2015 decided this case on the basis of the report of the Revenue Official dated 30.06.2014.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2015, respondent No.4 filed a revision under Section 219 of the Act of 1901, reg
The Collector has a statutory duty to correct errors in revenue records, including maps, without discretion to refuse corrections based on administrative manuals.
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed that issues previously settled cannot be re-litigated under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code unless substantial errors arise, thereby preventing unnecessary lit....
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 emphasized that map correction applications must adhere to proper provisions; specifically, errors in allotment should be addressed under Sections 33/39 rather than Section 28 of the Act.
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
