Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Shyam Dev – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case concerning map correction. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and remand process. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on the exercise of jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. judgment on setting aside prior orders. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion affirming the chief revenue officer's order. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Mr.Chandra Bhan Yadav for respondent No.5.
2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was initiated by the petitioners' father before Collector for correction of final map in respect to plot No.258. Consolidator submitted his report on 20.08.2009. The objections were filed by petitioner's father as well as respondent no.5 against the report of the Consolidator accordingly, Consolidator submitted another report on 05.02.2011 to the effect that final map of plot No.258 is not according to renumbering map. On th
The court affirmed the Chief Revenue Officer's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, ruling that remanding for fresh adjudication was an abuse of process.
The court emphasized adherence to statutory procedures in land revenue disputes, ensuring both parties have the opportunity to present their objections.
The Commissioner has jurisdiction to decide revisions on merit under the U.P. Land Revenue Act post-amendment, without needing to refer to the Board of Revenue.
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against a non-meritorious permit to withdraw, as the underlying assistant collector's order remained unchallenged.
The court emphasized that map correction applications must adhere to proper provisions; specifically, errors in allotment should be addressed under Sections 33/39 rather than Section 28 of the Act.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the authority to decide appeals on their merits rather than remanding to subordinate authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review under Sectio....
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
