Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Rameshwar Dayal – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's limited interference scope (Para 1 , 4 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim of land share (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. challenge to entries in record (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. partition suit title determination (Para 17) |
| 5. writ petition dismissal (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. In the present case, father of the original petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”) claiming 3/4 share in land in dispute, whereas the share of contesting original defendants to be distributed in remaining part of share i.e. 1/4.
3. The suit was contested and contesting defendants have filed a written statement denying claim of plaintiff. The claim of plaintiff was essentially based on C.H. Form No. 4, C.H. Form No. 5 and C.H. Form No.45, prepared during the consolidation proceedings as well as Khatauni of 1371 Fasli, where in his share, was shown to be 2/3. D
Claims regarding land share must be substantiated by proper procedural evidence; entries in consolidation forms alone do not establish finality in disputes.
The court affirmed the Consolidation Officer's decision of equal shares based on the sale deed, rejecting reliance on abated proceedings in title disputes.
The court upheld that concurrent findings by lower authorities on land ownership are not to be disturbed unless proven perverse, emphasizing the need for solid evidence in claims over ancestral versu....
The Board of Revenue erred in disregarding documentary evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims and overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing concurrent factual findings of lower courts.
Unregistered Wills granting limited interests do not negate partition rights unless claims about the nature of interests are timely raised during consolidation proceedings, reinforcing exclusive juri....
Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Effective and accurate computation of land shares based on historical records is essential in property disputes, with courts emphasizing error correction in previous decrees.
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
