SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Raj Kumar And Others - Petitioners
Versus
Board Of Revenue And Others – Respondents
WRIT B. No.26270 Of 1997
Decided On : 09-04-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anil Kumar Mishra, Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, Neeraj Tripathi, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai, Pratima Srivastava, Rajendra Kuamr, Ramendra Asthana, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, Shravan Kumar Mishra, Udai Chandani.
For the Respondent: Aa Khan, Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, Pradeep Kumar.

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.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 229-B, 209, and 331 - Second appeal by Kanpur Development Authority against dismissal of suit for expunging entries in revenue records - The Trial Court found defendants in possession since before vesting, thus becoming bhumidhar - The Board of Revenue's decree was set aside as it failed to consider the defendants' longstanding possession and rights under law. (Paras 1, 10, 22)

(B) Jurisdiction of Board of Revenue - The second appellate jurisdiction must focus on questions of law and cannot ignore factual determinations made by lower courts. (Paras 10, 15)

Facts of the case:
The Kanpur Development Authority filed a suit for declaration against defendants over land, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal to the Board of Revenue was allowed, reversing the lower court's decision.

Findings of Court:
The Board of Revenue's decision was not sustainable as it disregarded the established rights of the defendants and their continuous possession.

Issues: The central issues included the validity of the suit under Sections 229-B and 209 regarding possession and the jurisdictional scope of the Board of Revenue in second appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the longstanding possession of the defendants established their rights as bhumidhars, and the Board of Revenue's failure to address this fact rendered its decree invalid.

Result: Writ petition allowed; Board of Revenue's judgment set aside, affirming the Trial Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

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 biswa situated in Village Chakeri Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar for declaration that entries of defendant nos. 1 to 9 over the plot in question be expunged and if defendants are found in possession over the same, they may be ejected from the plot in question. The aforementioned suit was registered as suit No. 52/85/46/87 and State of U.P. was impleaded as defendant no.10. Defendants have put in appearance in the aforementioned suit and filed their written statement. Nine issues were framed before the Trial Court in the aforementioned suit and parties have adduced oral and documentary evidences in support of their cases. Trial Court while deciding the issue Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 has recording finding of fact that defendants are in possession over the plot in question since before the date of vesting accordingly they became adivasi and later on bhumidhar, as such, the entry in respect to the plot in question in the name of defendants cannot be expunged. The Trial Court ultimately dismissed the aforementioned suit vide judgement and decree dated 5.12.1987. Against the judgement and decree of Trial Court dated 5.12.1987, appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed on behalf of respondent no.3/ Kanpur Development Authority before the Commissioner which was registered as appeal No. 8/1987. The aforementioned appeal was heard and dismissed by Additional Commissioner vide judgement and decree dated 1.8.1988. Against the judgement and decree of Additional Commissioner dated 1.8.1988, respondent no.3/ Kanpur Development Authority filed a second appeal before Board of Revenue which was registered as second appeal No. 13 of 1988-89. The Board of Revenue vide judgement dated 23.4.1997 allowed the second appeal setting aside the judgement of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and decreed the plaintiff suit. Hence this writ petition filed for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.4.1997 of opposite party No.1 and restore that of the Courts below."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 12.8.1997 and stayed the operation of the order dated 24.3.1997 passed by Board of Revenue.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 12.8.1997 passed by this Court, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5. Mr. Ramendra Asthana, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Rai and Mr. Prajyot Rai, learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that lease deed was executed by Zamindar on 30.6.1949 in favour of Dwarika Prasad, wife of Dwarika Prasad, Vishwa Nath in respect to disputed plot along with certain other plots. They further submitted that in a suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act a decree was passed on 22.11.1952 in favour of defendants in respect to the plot in question. They further submitte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top