Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Shyamlal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Up – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Anuruddh Chaturvedi and Sri Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This case is arising out of a suit for partition filed under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “Act of 1950”) by contesting respondents. In proceedings of said suit, a proposed kurra was rejected and it was directed that Lekhpal concerned will submit a fresh kurra. For reference, relevant part of order is mentioned below :-
3. Aforesaid order was challenged by contesting respondents by way of filing a first appeal before Commissioner, Prayagraj. Said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2024 and relevant part of order is quoted below :-
4. In aforesaid circumstances, contesting respondents filed a revision petition under Section 333 of Act of 1950. Said revision petition was allowed vide order dated 18.09.2024 whereby orders dated 31.08.2019 and 01.04.2024 were set aside and matter was remitted back to pass a fresh order. Relevant part of order is quoted below :-
5. Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner submits that revision petition filed U/
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.
Court emphasized the necessity of maintaining interim orders during appeal proceedings and directing merits-based adjudication.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory scope and purpose of Section 333 of the Act, 1950 is to be availed only in those situations where no appeal lies or where an app....
The right to appeal or revise under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, remains intact for suits filed before the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing that such rights are substant....
In partition suits, additional issues may be rejected if existing issues sufficiently address the involvement of the parties and the matter at hand.
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
The court established that restoration proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are valid despite the enactment of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, emphasizing jurisdictional competence and subs....
The court emphasized that once a legal revision is entertained, subsequent orders should not arbitrarily modify prior orders, maintaining the integrity of due process.
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
