Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Satish Kumar Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State Of UP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint regarding forged revenue entries. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability of writ against summary proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's approach to review and independent judicial consideration. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. writ petition disposed with direction to reconsider. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 8 and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 9.
2. The present proceedings are apparently initiated on a complaint filed by one Vishambhar Singh in regard to alleged forged entries in revenue records in regard to the Gata No. 419 in favour of the petitioner. Few enquiries were conducted on said complaint and finally a suit was got instituted under Section 33 /39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
3. In the proceedings of the said suit, complainant Vishambhar Singh and petitioner herein filed their respective evidence in the form of various documents which are mentioned
Judicial review is appropriate when administrative bodies fail to engage substantively with evidence and legal arguments, especially in cases involving alleged patent illegalities.
Writ petitions against mutation orders are maintainable if they violate natural justice or are issued without jurisdiction, reaffirming the need for proper procedural adherence in land revenue matter....
A recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their entry is expunged under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, affirming the principles of natural justice.
The court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision, ruling that the Naib Tehsildar acted within jurisdiction and the petitioner's claims were dismissed due to lack of grounds for recall.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a revision against a non-meritorious permit to withdraw, as the underlying assistant collector's order remained unchallenged.
The Tehsildar's order in mutation proceedings is appealable under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, not revisable under Section 210.
Summary proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code cannot adjudicate title disputes; petitioners may seek declaration of rights through a regular suit.
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
