Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the rights over the disputed land. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of the procedural and legal issues at stake. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. detailed examination of relevant laws and previous case law impacting the decision. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. the judgment of the board of revenue was set aside. (Para 22) |
| 6. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Ramendra Asthana, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Mr. Prajyot Rai, learned counsels for the petitioners, Mr. Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3/ Kanpur Development Authority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3/ Kanpur Development Authority filed a suit under Section 229-B/ 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect to plot Nos. 196, 197, 199 total area 15 bigha 19 bi
The longstanding possession of defendants as bhumidhars cannot be disregarded, and the Board of Revenue must adhere to factual findings of lower courts in its second appellate jurisdiction.
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 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....
Suits under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are of special character with no limitation for filing, and findings of fact by the trial Court were upheld.
The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has a special status under the Constitution of India, and the general civil law would not be applicable over it. The determination of the nature of land exclusively falls with....
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
The Board of Revenue's judgment setting aside trial court findings was arbitrary, lacking proper legal basis and factual consideration, thus the trial court's decree was affirmed.
Co-sharers must prove joint acquisition to claim rights in property; appeals filed after significant delays are not maintainable.
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
