Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Sursatiya – Appellant
Versus
Gujratiya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned State Law Officer for the State-respondent and Mr. Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Ganesh son of Mahaveer was recorded owner of Plot No. 116 area 0.574 hectare, situated in Village Sudaya, Pargana-Pachotar, District Ghazipur, Plot No. 118 area 0.215 hectare situated in Village Khateerpur Khas, Pargana-Pachotar, District Ghazipur, Plot No. 45 Ka area 0.020 hectare, Plot No. 51 area 0.036 hectare, Plot No. 61 area 0.735 hectare, situated in village-Khateerpur Takiya, Pargana-Pachotar, District Ghazipur. Ganesh Son of Mahaveer expired in the year 2004. The family pedigree for Ganesh Son of Mahaveer will be relevant for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, which is as under:-
After death of Ganesh Son of Mahaveer, petitioner filed an application on 15.02.2005, under Section 34 of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 for recording the name of petitioner along with Ram Avtar Son of Ganesh to the extent of 1/2 share. It is also material fact that mutation application of the peti
The Board of Revenue must provide adequate reasoning in its orders; a cryptic order is unsustainable in law.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
The court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision, ruling that the Naib Tehsildar acted within jurisdiction and the petitioner's claims were dismissed due to lack of grounds for recall.
The Board of Revenue improperly set aside the Tehsildar's decision regarding land succession rights, failing to respect established jurisdictional boundaries.
Writ petitions against mutation orders are maintainable if they violate natural justice or are issued without jurisdiction, reaffirming the need for proper procedural adherence in land revenue matter....
Mutation proceeding does not confer any right or title, and the title of the property can only be decided by a competent civil court.
The Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide revisions on merit under the U.P. Land Revenue Act post-amendment, without needing to refer to the Board of Revenue.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
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
