Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Bhola – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secre. Board Of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sri Kumar Anish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Land Management Committee.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a Suit was filed by the petitioner under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) in respect to plot nos. 335 and 190 situated at village Dubli, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar. The issues were framed before the trial Court and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. The trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 03.11.1995 decreed the plaintiff's Suit granting benefit of Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act recording finding of the fact that petitioner belongs Scheduled Caste (Jatav) Community and has been found in possession since long as well as plot in dispute is not public utility plot, as such petitioner is entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar with non transferable right. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 03.11.1995 was challenged in appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.
The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to Bhumidhar rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, emphasizing the importance of recognizing statutory protections for marginalized community memb....
The recall of benefits granted under Section 122B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is impermissible without following proper legal procedures.
Deeming provision under Section 122-B(4-F) confers bhumidhar rights on eligible Scheduled Caste landless labourers; ex-parte recalls invalid; no revision against such orders or restorations thereof.
The longstanding possession of defendants as bhumidhars cannot be disregarded, and the Board of Revenue must adhere to factual findings of lower courts in its second appellate jurisdiction.
The established rights of a party should not be undermined by arbitrary state actions or prolonged restoration proceedings, especially when prior orders have not been set aside.
The court upheld the rights of agricultural laborers under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Act, ruling that the disputed plots were not acquired by the State, thus confirming their status as....
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
The judgment establishes the importance of considering the rights and protections provided to agricultural laborers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Section 122-B(4-F) of the ....
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
