Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Gaurav Arora – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. supplementary affidavits and preliminary matters are routine in court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. writ petition seeks to quash an interlocutory order. (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner's claim of arbitrary proceedings under u.p. revenue code. (Para 5) |
| 4. state argues for non-interference in interlocutory orders. (Para 6) |
| 5. the court reviews previous orders for procedural integrity. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. court asserts proper jurisdiction must be followed post-entertainment. (Para 11) |
| 7. impugned order set aside; case directed to be resolved expeditiously. (Para 12) |
| 8. office directed to provide certified copy as per rules. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Anil Mehrotra, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mehul Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being heard and disposed of without inviting counter affidavit.
4. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
A revisional court's proper exercise of jurisdiction cannot be arbitrarily changed once proceedings have been entertained, reinforcing the need for procedural fairness.
The court emphasized that once a legal revision is entertained, subsequent orders should not arbitrarily modify prior orders, maintaining the integrity of due process.
Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining interim orders during appeal proceedings and directing merits-based adjudication.
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 court ruled that an appeal under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code is subject to revision under Section 210, emphasizing the supervisory role of the Board or Commissioner over subor....
A writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy when the impugned order violates principles of natural justice.
Judicial proceedings must follow prescribed procedures; failure to document and hear parties leads to invalid orders, undermining public trust in the justice system.
The court emphasized the necessity of consolidating related cases to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure judicial efficiency under the U.P. Revenue Code.
A revision under Section 210 of the UP Revenue Code is not maintainable unless the impugned order constitutes a 'suit or proceeding decided'.
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
