Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR
Ram Vishal Pandey – Appellant
Versus
District Judge Sultanpur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges dismissal of appeal. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. proceedings against petitioner for encroachment and pending interim relief. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding regularization of possession and requisite applications. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court upholds lower court's rejection of injunction. (Para 9) |
| 5. opportunity for petitioner to apply under section 67-a. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mathur, J.
1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 1532 of 2022 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), South, Sultanpur, who had rejected the application moved under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 preferred by the petitioner.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Gata No. 210 situated at Village Thanwarbari, Pargana Miranpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur was recorded in the name of Ramhit prior
A petitioner must demonstrate prima facie ownership or title for granting an interim injunction against eviction actions by state authorities, as confirmed by the higher court.
Eviction orders under the U.P. Revenue Code require measurement and demarcation to establish illegal possession; failure to do so renders such orders unsustainable.
The suit was held to be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act as the disputed land was recorded as Navin Parti during consolidation operation and the plaintiff did not take any steps to correct th....
Resolution by the Land Management Committee for land allotment without approval from the S.D.M. lacks legal validity, leading to unlawful possession claims.
Authorities must adhere to statutory provisions and consider beneficial legislation in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
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.
The court ruled that revenue authorities must diligently evaluate evidence and properly calculate damages in eviction proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code.
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.
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
