Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Mannanul Haq – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues trial court's findings should be upheld (Para 5) |
| 3. respondent claims no illegality in appeal ruling (Para 6) |
| 4. court's consideration of past rulings (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. trial court's findings were improperly reversed (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. court's final decision to affirm trial court's ruling (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shamim Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Gaon Sabha.
2. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.5 after issuance of notice to engage another counsel due to death of earlier counsel of respondent No.5.
3. Brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 229 -B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as to the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act) has been filed by petitioner in respect to the plot No.143 (New No.52) area 2.73 acres situated in village-Burhpur, Pargana- Amroha, District-Moradabad with the allegation that land in dispute was recorded in the name of Ehsanul Haq and Ziaul
Appellate courts must adhere to procedural correctness and cannot arbitrarily overturn lower court findings; due process is essential in adjudicating land rights based on historical claims.
The court upheld the trial court's finding that the unregistered will deed was forged, affirming the ancestral property rights of both sons as co-tenure holders.
Co-sharers must prove joint acquisition to claim rights in property; appeals filed after significant delays are not maintainable.
A revision filed after a significant delay is an abuse of process, and the cancellation of a lease under the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act is final, barring further claims for possession.
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....
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....
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....
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
