Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Surendra Kumar Rai – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1.Heard Mr. Ajai Kumar Rai holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, leaned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chandra Prakash Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.6-Gram Sabha.
2.Brief facts of the case are that plot No- 850M area 0.0090 hectare situated in village - Bheelampur chhapra, Pergana - Atraulia, Tehasil - Budhanpur, District - Azamgarh was recorded as Navin Patri in the revenue record. A report dated 20.3.2018 was submitted that petitioner is in possession of 0.009 hectare area of plot No - 850M since before 29.11.2012 by raising residential mandai over the same as such the plot No - 850M area 0.0090 hectare is to be recorded as abadi class 6(2) after expunging the entry of Navin Patri, the same was registered as Case No - 58 under section - 67A(1) of U.P. Revenue Code 2006 Report Versus Surendra Kumar Rai before respondent No-5/ Sub Divisional officer, Budhampur, Azamgarh and the same was finally decided by respondent No-5 Vide order dated 6.4.2018 approving the report dated 20.3.2018 and plot No - 850M area 0.0090 hectare was ordered to be recorded as
Restoration of proceedings under Section 67A(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code requires proper opportunity for hearing to all parties involved.
Procedural fairness is essential in eviction proceedings; failure to address specific grounds in appeals and adhere to established guidelines violates due process.
The court reinforced that administrative decisions must consider ongoing civil proceedings and legal injunctions, ensuring maintainability assessments align with established legal provisions.
The court highlighted the necessity for due process in land disputes, affirming that no demolition should occur pending resolution of restoration applications under the U.P. Revenue Code.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
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.
Possession of public utility land does not confer rights; damages must be calculated according to legal standards.
Ejectment orders must follow proper procedure, including adequate hearing and survey, and appeals should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds.
Natural justice mandates that parties must be afforded a hearing before their entries are expunged from revenue records, regardless of allegations of fraud.
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
