Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
IRSHAD ALI
Krishna Mohan Tewari – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Judicial Faizabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 20.10.1997 - annexure 6 to the writ petition and order dated 19.01.2001 passed by respondent No.2 and 1 respectively.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that Gata no. 1135 area 6 biswa 5 biswansi recorded as “Reserve for general Abadi” in khasra of fasli year 1395. Vide Resolution dated 3-12-1983 Land Management Committee allotted 1 Biswa each to both the petitioner and also allotted 1 Biswa to O.P. no. 3 and his father gata no. 1135 and in pursuance of that petitioner deposited the Nazrana on 28/05/84 and thereafter petitioners and O.P. no. 3 possess the allotted land.
4. Opposite party no. 3 filed a Suit no. 41/1988 Om Prakash vs Krishna Mohan & others stating therein land gata no. 1135 recorded as Abadi and prayed permanent injunction against the petitioner by denying the resolution dated 03-12-1983. When opposite par
Resolution by the Land Management Committee for land allotment without approval from the S.D.M. lacks legal validity, leading to unlawful possession claims.
Point of law : From the conjoint reading of Section 161, as well as, the Rules relating thereto, it transpires that the legislature has extended facility upon a bhumidhar to exchange his bhumidhari l....
The authority's order beyond jurisdiction is void; the previous order remains intact while directing a merits-based decision on the pending application.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Authorities are not obligated to provide ingress and egress over acquired land, and that in cases where a petitioner knowingly inves....
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.
Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate land title disputes; such matters must be resolved by Civil Courts under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886.
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 ....
The court established that prior illegal actions by government officials cannot affect the rights of third parties who acted in good faith under valid agreements.
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
