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
| 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
State of Uttarakhand (Prev. U.P.) Vs. Mohan Singh
State if Uttarakhand (Previously State of Uttar Pradesh) vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs. T. Suryachandra Rao
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors.
Basdev vs. State of U.P. and Others
Amba Prasad Vs. Abdul Noor Khan and Ors.
Raj Kishore (dead) Through LRs and Ors Vs. Heera (dead)Through LRs and Ors.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.