Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
IRSHAD ALI
Deen Bandhu – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Commissioner J Faizabad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to surplus land determination. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claims regarding jurisdiction and fairness in proceedings. (Para 10 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. procedural issues related to appeal and jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 28) |
| 4. arguments regarding natural justice and jurisdiction. (Para 19 , 23) |
| 5. analysis of procedural errors and jurisdiction claims. (Para 22 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. legal basis for ruling on land determination. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 7. writ petition allowed due to illegal orders. (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
Irshad Ali, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.7.1998 contained in Annexure-2, order dated 26.3.1993 contained in Annexure-3, the order dated 27.2.1986 contained in Annexure-4, the part of the order dated 7.12.1991 passed by the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and also the revised notice dated 28.2.1983 and the entire proceedings after summoning the original from the opposite parties.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the
Orders against deceased individuals are null and void if legal heirs are not substituted and natural justice principles are violated.
Subordinate courts must comply with remand orders from higher authorities, and failure to do so renders subsequent orders unsustainable, especially in matters affecting legal heirs.
Authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Ceiling Act must prove surplus claims with adequate evidence; failure to adhere to principles of natural justice and misclassification of land holdings rendered th....
Appellate authorities must strictly adhere to remand order directives and procedural requirements; failure to do so results in vitiated orders regarding land surplus determinations.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act does not permit retroactive scrutiny of land transfers pre-dating statutory cut-off; failure to follow judicial precedents constitutes a breach of natural j....
The State must prove land irrigation status when challenged, failing which arbitrary classification under ceiling laws is invalid.
The appellate authority’s reliance on will deeds for land titling, based on proper evidence and administrative remand, was upheld, confirming that past rulings subject to reconsideration do not apply....
The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
The court established that the Prescribed Authority must follow the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 4A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, and that the burden of pr....
The appellate order allowing claims of adverse possession was quashed due to lack of evidence and presumption of collusion with the tenure holder.
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
