Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Satish – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical context and proceedings of eviction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. judicial decisions and appeals process. (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's findings and errors in previous judgments. (Para 19 , 21 , 25) |
| 4. legal interpretations of rights under section 122-b. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. final judgment and implications. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing Counsel for State and Ms. Anjali Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondents.
2. In the present case, about 5 decades ago, a notice was issued on 01.01.1970 against ancestors of petitioners in regard to land in dispute under Section 122 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “Act of 1950”) for eviction. In said suit, vide a reasoned order dated 21.04.1970, the notice was withdrawn with an observation that since ancestors of petitioners were in possession on land in dispute for more than 12 years and since no proceedings for eviction were earlier taken, therefore, they have acquired sirdari rights and a direction was passed to initiate
Possession for over 12 years confers sirdari rights; established orders must be recognized by revenue authorities to amend records suitably.
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 ....
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 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.
The court established that there is no limitation for filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, affirming the petitioners' continuous possession and rights over the disputed lan....
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
The Court upheld that the relevant date for determining land rights is the date of vesting, and concurrent findings of authorities should not be disturbed unless proven to be perverse.
The judgment established that the issuance and extension of Patta, as well as the fulfillment of conditions for land ownership, are crucial in determining the rights of the petitioner.
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
