Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Bachai Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Order on Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 21 of 2022.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. In view of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the instant amendment application is allowed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition.
Order on Writ Petition
1. Heard Sri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasiya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 3/ Gaon Sabha.
2. The brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 229B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed by private respondent No. 4 which was registered as Case No. 88 of 1982. In the aforementioned suit petitioner's father was impleaded as defendant who filed objection regarding maintainability of suit being barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was decided against the petitioner's father by trial court vide order dated 20.05.1982 holding that instant suit is not barred and it sh
The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of long-pending suits under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, affirming that delays in restoration applications can be dismissed on grounds of limitati....
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
The Board of Revenue's judgment setting aside trial court findings was arbitrary, lacking proper legal basis and factual consideration, thus the trial court's decree was affirmed.
Restoration applications for ex-parte decrees are maintainable and do not abate under the U.P.C.H. Act, even if consolidation operations are ongoing.
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
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
