Back
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Ram Naresh – Appellant
Versus
Suvej Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and procedural history of the petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments related to the maintenance of land records. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. judicial observations about earlier cases and legal principles. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. ruling to set aside previous orders and remit the matter. (Para 15) |
| 5. final decision of the court approving the writ petition. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Nazar Bokhari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Tarun Gaud, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
2. The present petition has been instituted against the order dated 15.01.2020, passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 25.04.2023, passed by the respondent No.4, it is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been initiated for seeking correction of map only wherein certain discrepancies has been highlighted that Plot no. 22 has been mentioned two times with the fragmented line available in the map which ref
The principle of res judicata does not preclude a subsequent application for correction of land records under Section 30 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
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....
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
A petitioner must demonstrate locus standi and personal interest in the matter to maintain a petition regarding land records, especially when the land is vested in a public authority.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
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....
The right to appeal or revise under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains intact for suits filed before the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing that such rights are substant....
The Collector has a statutory duty to correct errors in revenue records, including maps, without discretion to refuse corrections based on administrative manuals.
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
