Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Satyeshwar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim based on will dated 1966. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the dismissal of the suit's maintainability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on compliance with the law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. disposition of the case with a direction to file a fresh suit. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Sri Shrinath, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri R.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri Komal Mehrotra, Sri K.M Garg, Sri Ankur Mehrotra, Advocates and Sri Ujjawal Satsangi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikey Saran, Advocate for contesting-respondents.
2. Petitioner before this Court is claiming his right essentially on basis of Will dated 26.09.1966.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that said Will was upheld upto this Court, however, allegedly name of some of the contesting-respondents entered into revenue record which necessitated petitioner to file suit for declaration under Section 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”) in the year 1968. Initially suit was decreed, however, on an appeal matter was remitted back t
The court permitted the filing of a fresh suit despite previous dismissal due to compliance with statutory reporting requirements, reaffirming access to justice in land disputes.
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.
Claims of possession based on zamindari settlements must be substantiated with evidence, particularly where consolidation proceedings have abated prior actions.
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....
Delay in filing a mutation application raises doubts about its legitimacy, especially when previous claims have already been adjudicated and dismissed.
A party claiming adverse possession must demonstrate peaceful, open, and continuous possession, and the court emphasized the necessity for the suit to be adjudicated on merits.
Inordinate delay in filing a recall application without adequate justification can lead to dismissal of the petition, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.
A suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code cannot be decided without framing issues and allowing evidence, and orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.
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
