Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where the Board's order is a remand, further statutory remedies, including revision, are available, and the petitioner should pursue these to challenge the order effectively ["Paltoo Ram Yadav VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad"].
What remedy is available for the Petitioner?
Analysis and Conclusion:- The remand order under Section 209 does not preclude the petitioner from seeking further remedies. The petitioner should primarily resort to revision under Section 210, which is a potent remedy for challenging revenue orders, including those resulting in remand. Filing an appeal under Section 207 is also an option if the order is final and appealable. The choice of remedy depends on the nature of the remand and the specific order passed. Proper legal grounds and timely filing are essential to ensure effective redressal ["Mahendra Singh VS Board Of Revenue Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"], ["Sushil Kumar VS Additional Commissioner Judicial- I, Lucknow - Allahabad"].
References:- ["Mahendra Singh VS Board Of Revenue Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"]- ["Sushil Kumar VS Additional Commissioner Judicial- I, Lucknow - Allahabad"]- ["Paltoo Ram Yadav VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad"]
In the complex landscape of Uttar Pradesh land revenue laws, a remand order by the Board of Revenue under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZA & LR Act) can leave petitioners uncertain about their next steps. If you're facing a situation where the Board of Revenue remands the matter under Section 209 UPZA, what remedies are available? This blog post breaks down the key legal options, drawing from statutory provisions and judicial precedents to guide you through the process.
While this information is based on established case law and statutes, it is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your unique circumstances.
Section 209 of the UPZA & LR Act typically governs suits for possession of agricultural land by bhumidhars or asamis against trespassers. When lower authorities decide such cases, appeals may reach the Board of Revenue, which holds significant appellate powers. A remand order under this section directs the lower court or authority to reconsider the matter, often due to procedural errors, incomplete evidence, or jurisdictional issues.
Such remands are generally interlocutory, meaning they do not finally dispose of the case. However, they can prolong disputes and impact possession or mutation entries in revenue records. As noted in related proceedings, mutation does not confer title, and possession as recorded in the revenue record is crucial. Mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and may not have the effect of res judicata in a regular suit (from a case on mutation disputes).
Petitioners are not left without recourse. Courts have consistently affirmed that remand orders do not extinguish further remedies. Here are the main avenues:
One of the most direct remedies is filing a revision under Section 219, which allows the Board of Revenue (or higher authorities) to review orders of subordinate courts for illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional errors. Importantly, the remedy of revision under Section 219 of the UPZA & LR Act remains available to the petitioner even after a remand Indraj Singh VS Savitri Kunwar - 1965 0 Supreme(All) 30.
In Santu vs. State of U.P. and Others, the court emphasized that even after a remand, the petitioner can invoke the revision jurisdiction if the order is deemed to be illegal or improper Indraj Singh VS Savitri Kunwar - 1965 0 Supreme(All) 30. This provision applies to interlocutory orders like remands, ensuring petitioners can challenge procedural flaws without waiting for a final decision.
For broader scrutiny, petitioners may approach the Allahabad High Court via a writ petition under Article 226. This constitutional remedy allows review of whether the remand was passed in accordance with law, whether the Board had jurisdiction, and whether the principles of natural justice were followed Ram Baksh VS Board of Revenue - 1967 0 Supreme(All) 394.
However, judicial review is limited to legality and procedural correctness, not the merits of the underlying dispute. Courts have clarified that the Board of Revenue’s remand order does not bar the petitioner from pursuing further legal remedies, including filing a writ petition or a revision, depending on the circumstances and the nature of the order Indraj Singh VS Savitri Kunwar - 1965 0 Supreme(All) 30.
Judicial interpretations provide deeper context. For instance, Section 210 of the UPZA & LR Act, which deals with consequences of not filing suits under Section 209, has been discussed in cases where the Board failed to appreciate its scope: The Board of Revenue failed to appreciate that Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act does not contemplate any proceeding other than one u/s 209 of the Act Tej Bahadur Singh VS Board of Revenue - 1967 Supreme(All) 200. This underscores the need to stick closely to statutory limits in remand decisions.
In mutation-related disputes, courts have set aside remand orders by the Board when they overlooked possession records: The court set aside the orders of the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue, and directed that the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate defense of adverse possession in a pending suit (mutation property dispute case). This highlights how remands under revenue laws must respect title sources and avoid summary overreach.
Other precedents reinforce alternative remedies. In a case involving Section 209 suits, petitioners were advised on ongoing proceedings: the petitioners have already filed a suit for possession under Section 209 of the UPZA & LR Act against the respondents, which is pending disposal before the court below Jagdish Singh Rawat VS Dilip Singh - 2014 Supreme(UK) 522. Similarly, under Section 210 principles akin to Limitation Act Section 27, continuous adverse possession must be proven before invoking post-remand defenses CHANDAN SINGH VS UMESH MASSEY - 2014 Supreme(UK) 309.
High Court rulings also caution against bypassing statutory paths. For example, in appeals under Section 207 or related to Section 229-D of the repealed UPZA, first appeals are available against final orders, but remands may trigger revisions MAHENDRA SINGH AND 6 OTHERS vs BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AND 8 OTHERS.
Not all remands are challengeable on merits:- Interlocutory Nature: Petitioners cannot re-argue case merits at remand stage but must focus on procedural/jurisdictional issues.- Final Orders: If remand effectively disposes the case, appeal or review under specific sections applies.- Alternative Remedies: Courts often direct parties to statutory remedies first, as seen in writ dismissals where the petitioner has an alternative remedy NANDU AND 5 OTHERS vs State of U.P. AND 7 OTHERS.
In broader contexts, like disputes under Section 229-B for title declaration, remands do not preclude parallel suits Jagdish Singh Rawat VS Dilip Singh - 2014 Supreme(UK) 522.
To navigate this effectively:- Examine the Order: Scrutinize for jurisdictional defects, natural justice violations, or misapplication of Sections 209/210.- File Promptly: Time limits apply; revisions under Section 219 typically have 90 days.- Choose Strategically: Start with revision for speed; escalate to writ if needed. Combining both may offer comprehensive coverage.- Gather Evidence: Revenue records, possession proofs, and prior orders strengthen challenges.- Consider Related Actions: Pending suits under Section 209 or mutations can influence outcomes, but remember mutation does not confer any title.
Facing a Board of Revenue remand under Section 209 UPZA? Act swiftly with these remedies to protect your rights. For personalized guidance, reach out to a land law expert in Uttar Pradesh.
References:1. Indraj Singh VS Savitri Kunwar - 1965 0 Supreme(All) 30: Santu vs. State of U.P. – Remedies post-remand.2. Ram Baksh VS Board of Revenue - 1967 0 Supreme(All) 394: Scope of judicial review for Board orders.3. Additional contexts from Tej Bahadur Singh VS Board of Revenue - 1967 Supreme(All) 200, Jagdish Singh Rawat VS Dilip Singh - 2014 Supreme(UK) 522, mutation cases, and High Court judgments.
#UPZALandLaw, #RevenueRemandRemedies, #LandDisputeIndia
The Board of Revenue failed to appreciate that Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act does not contemplate any proceeding other than one u/s 209 of the Act. ... of Section 210 of the UPZA and LR Act. ... became Sirdars by virtue of the provisions of Section 210 of the UPZA and LR Act. ... Section 210 lays down the consequence of not bringing a suit u/s 209 or not executing a decree obtained in such a suit within ....
6.2 The remedy of first appeal under Section 207 of the Revenue Code, apart from being available against a final order or decree passed in a suit, is also available against an order of the nature specified in Order XLIII Rule 1 of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure ... It would therefore be seen that apart from the remedy of a first appeal being available against final orders or decrees passed in a suit, application or proceeding specified in column 2 ....
Section 209 of the UPZA and LR Act never provided for the impleadment of the UP State. Therefore, it was not necessary for a Plaintiff to implead the State nor it appears that any objection was taken before the trial court for such impleadment. ... When this writ petition came up for hearing it was argued on behalf of the opposite parties that in view of the new amendment of Section 209 of the Act the State Government has become a necessary party and the view that the Board of #HL_STAR....
23.11.2021 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, U.P. ... 209, would be required to be adverted to. ... 209 and to make the order non-appealable. ... of first appeal under Section 207 of the Revenue Code, apart from being available against a final order or Revenue Code as also Section 229-D of the repealed UPZA and LR Act
The order passed by the Commissioner while exercising powers of the first Appellate Court under Section 207 of the Revenue Code, having resulted in a remand, the bar contained under Clause (e) of Section 209 would be attracted and the remedy of a further statutory appeal would not be available. ... by the Court below, it was a case of a 'remand simpliciter' and, therefore, the remedy of the revision would not be available#....
209 of UPZA and LR Act. ... 209 Gaon Sabha contended that the petitioners have an alternative remedy ... . - 728 of 2022 Petitioner :- Nandu And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Chandra Pandey/span
209 of the UPZA & LR Act and the respondents, if so advised, may also file suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act for declaration of their title. ... Servesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly submitted that the petitioners have already filed a suit for possession under Section 209 of the UPZA & LR Act against the respondents, which is pending disposal before the court below. ... Therefore, instead of objecting the mutation, respondents ought ....
The Board of Revenue has confirmed this view and dismissed the Petitioner's second appeal. For the Petitioner it was urged that in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Bodhi Lal and Ors. v. Board of Revenue and Ors. ... Section 209 of the UPZA and LR Act also was not intended to leave loopholes because of which some classes of suit for ejectment of trespassers on agricultural land may go outside the purview of revenue#H....
Section 164 of the UPZA & LR Act reads as under : ... “164. ... First appeal arising therefrom was dismissed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, vide judgment dated 30.4.2008 and second appeal was also dismissed by the Board or Revenue, Uttarakhand, vide judgment and decree dated 11.10,2013. ... ... Petitioners have filed suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act seeking declaration to the effect that the petitioners have matured bhumidhari rights over the property in questi....
The order passed by the Commissioner while exercising powers of the first Appellate Court under Section 207 of the Revenue Code, having resulted in a remand, the bar contained under Clause (e) of Section 209 would be attracted and the remedy of a further statutory appeal would not be available. ... Against the order impugned by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed a #HL_STAR....
Therefore, remedy under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 is available to petitioner. From the statutory scheme and precedent decisions noted above it is clear that the Debts Recovery Tribunal can go into the aspect of classifying the account as NPA and also whether RBI guidelines are violated on any aspect leading to declaring the account as NPA and taking recourse under the Act. Coming back to the case on hand, the bank has issued possession notice and also notified auction date to sell the secured assets. On the contrary, as consistently opined by constitutional courts the asp....
It is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to avail remedy available under the law. If such petition is filed by the petitioner before the competent court, the observations made in this writ petition shall not be binding and such petition shall be decided on its own merit without prejudiced to this order.
The remedy available to the petitioner is under Section - 23 of the Act, 2001. Further, the petitioner is also not entitled to seek revocation of Building Permit No.3/C1/06693/2021, dated 10.05.2021, issued in favour of respondent No.4 on the ground that respondent No.4 has obtained the same by suppression and misrepresentation of facts, and that he has obtained the same without NOC from the petitioner. (i) In view of the above discussion, according to this Court, the bye-laws of the petitioner are not statutory in nature and they do not have any force of law. This Court is....
The petitioner has failed to approach the relevant authority under the I-T Act to claim relief. We agree that a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 89. This instant case is not a writ against the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing relief.
We agree that a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 89. This instant case is not a writ against the order of the Assessing Officer disallowing relief. The petitioner has failed to approach the relevant authority under the I-T Act to claim relief.
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
