Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Bihari Lal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consent to hear the case without counter affidavit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of petition regarding assami lease and land records. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding the legality of land record entries. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. acknowledgment of facts regarding expunged entries. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. judicial observations about revisional court's findings. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. modification of the revisional order and mandates for trial court. (Para 10) |
| 7. disposal of the writ petition. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned standing counsel for the state- respondents and Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is being heard and disposed of, without inviting counter affidavit in the matter.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was granted assmi lease in the year 1977 in respect to plot no.874, area 0.022 hect; plot no. 875/1, area 0.235 hect; plot no. 875/2, area 0.044 hect and plot no.875/3, area 0.02 hect. (total area 0.303 hect.). The consolidation proceeding intervened in the villag
Revisional court findings affecting rights under Section 76(dd) of U.P. Revenue Code are legally erroneous if made prior to trial, and procedural fairness in land disputes is essential.
Revisional jurisdiction under consolidation laws requires adherence to legal procedures, especially concerning time-barred claims and the provision of interim protection.
Aasami leases under U.P. law are limited to five years and cannot be inherited post-expiration, thus the petitioner had no rights over the land after the lease expired.
An Aasami lease under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is limited to a maximum of five years, and upon expiration, the rights do not transfer to heirs unless specifically provided by law. The court emphasized....
Revisions involving the same parties and disputes must be consolidated for efficient resolution under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
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 court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
The Collector can refer matters under the Land Revenue Act even after dropping proceedings, ensuring due process and opportunity for parties to present their case.
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
