Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Mst. Purshottami – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-B No.13084 of 1983 as well as Misilband Register placed before the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Ram Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha.
3. Since common issues are involved in both the petition hence both the writ petition are heard together and are being decided by a common order.
4. Brief facts of the cases are that the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act") was filed by Purshottami as well as Chauthi impleading the State and Gaon Sabha as defendants. The suit filed by Purshottami was registered as Suit No.150/235/75 and the suit filed by Chauthi was registered as Suit No.151/1977 pleading that plaintiffs are Sirdar of the plot in question and they are in possession of the plot in question for last 30 years. They further pleaded that in the proceeding
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.
A co-sharer in ancestral property retains their rights despite not participating in consolidation proceedings, and their claims cannot be dismissed solely based on procedural bars without a substanti....
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 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.
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
