Back
MANISH KUMAR
Rajit Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gram Sabha and Sri Hemand Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned judgment/ order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Respondent No. 4 in Revision No. 1202/2023 (Rajit Ram vs. State of U.P. & Others) under Section 333 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act, 1950’) and impugned order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Respondent No. 6 rejecting the application for recall dated 9.6.2022 in Case No. 161/215/54/210 filed under Section 229 (B) of the Act, 1950 and with a further prayer to direct the respondent not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner on Gata No. 233 of area 0.316 hectares which is in possession of the petitioner for about 20 years, situated at Village Kondari, Pargana Haveli and Tehsil-Sadar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, and further to direct the Respondent No. 4 to rehear/reconsider the Revision No. 1202/2023 on merits and also direct the Respondent No. 6 to decide the suit for declarat
Inordinate delay in filing a recall application without adequate justification can lead to dismissal of the petition, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.
The court ruled that a person must demonstrate a legal grievance to qualify as 'aggrieved' for a writ petition under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, emphasizing enforceable rights ....
The court established that powers under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act must be exercised within a reasonable time, and unreasonable delays invalidate such actions.
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....
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.
Deeming provision under Section 122-B(4-F) confers bhumidhar rights on eligible Scheduled Caste landless labourers; ex-parte recalls invalid; no revision against such orders or restorations thereof.
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.
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....
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
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
