Back
JASPREET SINGH
Mohd. Siraj – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 4.
2. The order under challenge is dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration) in proceedings initiated at the behest of the private respondents under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and while dismissing the said proceedings there are certain observations which has drawn the irk of the petitioner prompting him to file a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) and the revision has also been dismissed by means of order dated 29.05.2024.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question belonged to the petitioner and has been in the family since the time of his forefathers. It is urged that it is an ancestral property and the name of the grand father of the petitioner was recorded in the Khatauni of 1356 and 1359 fasli years. However, sometime in the decade of 1970, the said land came to be recorded as Banjar and Usar. Upo
The Collector can refer matters under the Land Revenue Act even after dropping proceedings, ensuring due process and opportunity for parties to present their case.
Point of law: opinion Section 8 is not attracted in the case of leases of land where the purposes of the leases is to use the land for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture etc. It i....
Proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary and cannot decide disputed title. Revisional Court's jurisdiction limited to issues raised before Assistant Collector. Dispu....
Revisional court findings affecting rights under Section 76(dd) of U.P. Revenue Code are legally erroneous if made prior to trial, and procedural fairness in land disputes is essential.
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.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot expunge long-standing land entries; proper judicial recourse is required for ownership disputes.
The petitioner failed to establish his claim of inheritance over the disputed land due to lack of evidence and failure to challenge prior orders vesting the land in the State.
A petitioner must demonstrate prima facie ownership or title for granting an interim injunction against eviction actions by state authorities, as confirmed by the higher court.
The Additional Commissioner lacks the statutory authority to review his own orders under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, leading to the annulment of subsequent orders.
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
