Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Govardhan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Addil. Commissioner IIIrd, Devipatan Division, Gonda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha concerned.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:-
ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned order dated 23.06.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Tahsil Mahasi District Bahraich i.e. opposite party no.2 in case no. 22 (Govardhan Singh vs Gram Sabha and others) under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 as contain in Annexure no.2 to this petition."
3. At the very outset, learned State counsel says that the issues involved in this petition has already been dealt with by this Court in the judgment dated 0
The absence of a hearing does not invalidate administrative orders if compelling evidence supports the decision, emphasizing that not all violations of natural justice lead to nullification.
The court established that residents can challenge land allotments as 'persons aggrieved' under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the importance of public interest in suc....
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
Natural justice mandates that parties must be afforded a hearing before their entries are expunged from revenue records, regardless of allegations of fraud.
Point of law: Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land ....
Failure to consider the delay condonation application before allowing the recall application can lead to the setting aside of the order and quashing of the revisional court's order.
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and have no legal effect, emphasizing the significance of jurisdictional validity in admin....
The court established that khatedari rights must be respected and that revenue authorities must maintain accurate records without unjustified alterations.
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
