Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Tufani – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, holding the brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229 -B of The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act"), was filed by father of petitioner in respect to plot no.192 (New Nos. 24M, area .06 decimal, 25M, area .02 decimal, 30M, area .03 decimal), before the Sub Divisional Officer which was registered as Case No.244/232/353/90. In the aforementioned suit, issues were framed before the trial court and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. The trial court/S.D.O. vide judgment and decree dated 23.3.1998 decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring the plaintiff as Bhumidhar of the plot in question. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 23.3.1998, an appeal was filed by the father of the contesting respondent No.2 before the Commissioner which was registered as Appeal No.49/35/G-1998. The aforementioned appeal was heard
The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.
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.
The court emphasized that delay in filing a restoration application undermines the right to challenge prior orders, reinforcing the principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and not denying p....
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Application for mutation – Condonation of delay - The term "sufficient cause" is to receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice, when no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is a....
Ejectment orders must follow proper procedure, including adequate hearing and survey, and appeals should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, the elastic nature of 'sufficient cause', and the need to consider the conduct, behaviour, and a....
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
