Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Triveni Lal – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4/1 to 4/3 is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Aniruddha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for private respondent nos. 3, 4/1 to 4/3, Sri Ashuthhosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, learned cousnel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
3. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no.223 area 2.42 decimal situated in village-Bishunpura, Mutalike Karnai, Pargana and District-Ballia. A suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act) was filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3 for declaration of bhumidhari right in respect to plot no.223 area 2.42 decimal. In the plaint, it has been alleged that in the year 1970 father of the petitioner has given disputed plot to the contesting respondents for looking after the same and after the death of petitioner's father, the respondents are in continuous possession over the plot in question. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner de
The longstanding possession of defendants as bhumidhars cannot be disregarded, and the Board of Revenue must adhere to factual findings of lower courts in its second appellate jurisdiction.
The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to Bhumidhar rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, emphasizing the importance of recognizing statutory protections for marginalized community memb....
Proper issue framing and evidence assessment are essential in land rights claims; failure to do so necessitates remand for lawful adjudication.
Review jurisdiction cannot set aside proper findings without clear error; procedural adherence is essential in appeals.
Co-sharers must prove joint acquisition to claim rights in property; appeals filed after significant delays are not maintainable.
The court affirmed that the trial court's decree granting bhumidhari rights was valid, and the Board of Revenue acted within its jurisdiction in upholding this decision.
The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has a special status under the Constitution of India, and the general civil law would not be applicable over it. The determination of the nature of land exclusively falls with....
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....
Suits under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act are of special character with no limitation for filing, and findings of fact by the trial Court were upheld.
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
