Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Vijay Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Ayodhya Division Ayodhya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Saurabh Lavania, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2, Brijendra Mani Pandey, learned counsel for caveators/respondents no. 4 and 5. Notice on behalf of respondent no.3/Village Panchayat Naugawan Teer has been accepted by Shri Mohan Singh, Advocate.
2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at admission stage.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for following main reliefs:
The court emphasized the necessity for accurate land measurements and the precedence of khatauni over khasra in property disputes.
The Collector has a statutory duty to correct errors in revenue records, including maps, without discretion to refuse corrections based on administrative manuals.
The court affirmed the Chief Revenue Officer's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, ruling that remanding for fresh adjudication was an abuse of process.
The Supreme Court affirmed that issues previously settled cannot be re-litigated under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code unless substantial errors arise, thereby preventing unnecessary lit....
The court emphasized that map correction applications must adhere to proper provisions; specifically, errors in allotment should be addressed under Sections 33/39 rather than Section 28 of the Act.
The court emphasized adherence to statutory procedures in land revenue disputes, ensuring both parties have the opportunity to present their objections.
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
