Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ajay Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of partition suit and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's review of procedure and jurisdiction concerning appeals. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments on the legality of board's orders. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. conclusion setting aside the board's order. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gauri Shankar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for Gram Sabha and Mr. Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7, 8 and 12.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.5 filed a suit under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for partition impleading petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 6 to 12 as defendants in respect to plots of Khata Nos. 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 situated at Village-Chaurabhoj, Pargana-Pachotar, Teshil-Sadar, District-Ghazipur. Trial Court/Sub Divisional Officer passed the Preliminary decree dated 30.09.2019. In pursuance of the preliminary decree dated 30.09.2019 Lekhpal submitted Kurra on 01.11.2019 which was confirmed vide order
Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining interim orders during appeal proceedings and directing merits-based adjudication.
The court emphasized the necessity of a fair hearing in legal proceedings, ruling that ex-parte orders and technical rejections of applications cannot deny substantive justice.
In partition suits, additional issues may be rejected if existing issues sufficiently address the involvement of the parties and the matter at hand.
The court clarified that the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to entertain a case through either revision or second appeal under the relevant acts, ensuring no prejudice to the petitioner.
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
Transfer applications must be based on genuine grounds; repeated applications causing undue delay in proceedings are unjustified.
A revisional court's proper exercise of jurisdiction cannot be arbitrarily changed once proceedings have been entertained, reinforcing the need for procedural fairness.
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
