Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Vidhya Pracharni Sabha Prem Nagar – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue At Allahabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Sri K.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jitendra Kumar for respondent no.6/1/5, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7, Sri Manoj Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6/2/1 to 6/2/4, Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents and Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.5/Nagar Palika Parishad/Nagar Nigam.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no.969, area 1.72 acre and plot no.980, area 2.37 acre, situated in Mauza Rudra Panch Mahal, Jhansi, District Jhansi. One Dhani Ram (father of respondent no.5) filed a civil suit on 10.3.1969, impleading the petitioner as well State of U.P. and others as defendants for decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interferring in the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of plot nos. 969 and 980 as well as for specific performance. The aforementioned suit was registered as Suit No.219/1969 before Munisaf, Jhansi. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.1974 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The decree of the tr
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair hearing before making decisions that affect parties' rights, reinforcing principles of natural justice.
A stranger to the proceeding has no right to file a recall application against a judgment and decree passed on the basis of a compromise.
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 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 court ruled that an ex parte order requires a recall application to be maintainable, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard before any interim orders are issued.
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 recall of benefits granted under Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is impermissible without following proper legal procedures.
The Board of Revenue must resolve pending applications before proceeding with appeals, ensuring all parties are properly notified.
Parties not involved in a second appeal lack standing to challenge the Board of Revenue's decision regarding land ownership.
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
