Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Shiv Pratap – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue U. P. At Allahabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners today, is taken on record.
2.Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 9, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.8-Gaon Sabha and Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Ceavator/ respondent No.6.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Suit under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as to U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act) was filed at the instance of Respondent No.6 before Sub Divisional Officer, Khaga, Fatehpur in respect to plot of Khata Nos. 107 and 158 situated in Mauja-Karmon, Pargana, Hathgaon, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur impleading State, petitioners and others as defendant. Defendant filed their written statement denying plaint allegation. The issues were framed in the aforementioned suit and parties were permitted to lead their evidence in support of their cases. The parties adduced their evidences accordingly. Trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehpur-respondent No.3 vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2021 decreed the planitiff's suit i
The court upheld the trial court's finding that the unregistered will deed was forged, affirming the ancestral property rights of both sons as co-tenure holders.
Co-sharers must prove joint acquisition to claim rights in property; appeals filed after significant delays are not maintainable.
Appellate courts must adhere to procedural correctness and cannot arbitrarily overturn lower court findings; due process is essential in adjudicating land rights based on historical claims.
The court established that there is no limitation for filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, affirming the petitioners' continuous possession and rights over the disputed lan....
Suits under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are of special character with no limitation for filing, and findings of fact by the trial Court were upheld.
A co-sharer in ancestral property retains their rights despite not participating in consolidation proceedings, and their claims cannot be dismissed solely based on procedural bars without a substanti....
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.
The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to Bhumidhar rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, emphasizing the importance of recognizing statutory protections for marginalized community memb....
A revision filed after a significant delay is an abuse of process, and the cancellation of a lease under the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act is final, barring further claims for possession.
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
