Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
RAJAN ROY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Abbas Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Civil Sectt. Lko. – Respondent
(Per: Rajan Roy, J.)
1. All these writ petitions have been clubbed and heard together.
2. In Writ C No. 661 of 2021 ( Faraz Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others ), Writ C No. 684 of 2021 ( Asma Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others ) and Writ C No. 687 of 2021 ( Nadeem-Ur-Rehman and another vs. State of U.P. and others ), order dated 14.08.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow, District Lucknow in exercise of his powers under Section 33 read with Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1901') by which he has corrected entries in the 'records of rights' (Khatauni) pertaining to Gata No. 93 situated in Village Jiamau, Tehsil Sadar, District Lucknow, is under challenge. Apart from it, notices issued by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, under Section 15 (9) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1973') have also been challenged.
3. In Writ C No. 7005 of 2023 ( Abbas Ansari vs. State of U.P. and others ), apart from the order dated 14.08.2020 referred above, an order dated 22.03.2021 has also been challenged which reiterates the decision taken in the order dated 14
Revenue records do not confer or extinguish title; corrections are procedural and do not resolve substantive title disputes, requiring independent legal proceedings.
Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.
The court confirmed that established land settlements must be respected and that authorities cannot alter classifications of land previously settled without valid justification under law.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot expunge long-standing land entries; proper judicial recourse is required for ownership disputes.
Mutation proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code do not determine title or confer ownership; such matters are subject to civil court adjudication, and petitions against mutation orders are generally not ....
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The correction of land records must follow statutory procedures under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act, and orders issued against deceased individuals are void.
Point Of Law: It is important to appreciate the question of intention as it would have appeared to the paper-owner. The issue is that intention of the adverse user gets communicated to the paper owne....
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to issue mutation orders upheld when confirmed ownership certificates exist, superseding prior claims based on disputed titles.
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
