Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Applicability of Limitation Act to Section 229B suits - The Limitation Act generally does not apply to suits under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, as these are considered suits of special character with no specific limitation period prescribed. The courts have held that different limitation periods are provided for different suits, and thus, Limitation Act provisions are not automatically applicable Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad, Kulpavitra Tyagi VS Board of Revenue Meerut - Allahabad.
Nature and Scope of Section 229B Proceedings - Suits under Section 229B are of a special character, primarily for declaration of rights as a bhumidhar. They involve detailed issues such as land records, consolidation, and revenue proceedings. Courts have emphasized the importance of proper issue framing and procedural adherence, noting that these suits cannot proceed without proper framing of issues and that their pendency can extend over many years Ramvir Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad, Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad, Emperor VS Mantu Tiwari - 1926 0 Supreme(All) 515.
Procedural Aspects and Civil Procedure Application - Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to Section 229B suits, especially under Section 341 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. This ensures that civil procedural safeguards are maintained, and suits are decided based on proper adjudication rather than arbitrary dismissal Kulpavitra Tyagi VS Board of Revenue Meerut - Allahabad, Lt. Col. Vivek Sood VS State of U. P. - Allahabad.
Impact of Subsequent Legislation and Jurisprudence - Post-U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, some courts have held that suits under Section 229B may become non-maintainable if initiated after the commencement of the new revenue law, but this depends on the specific facts and timing of filing Sukhram VS Board of Revenue - Allahabad.
Legal Challenges and Court Decisions - Courts have dismissed or upheld suits under Section 229B based on procedural irregularities, lack of proper issue framing, or applicability of newer laws. Some judgments clarify that suits filed under Section 229B are of a special nature and require careful procedural compliance; otherwise, they may be dismissed Ramvir Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad, Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad, Lt. Col. Vivek Sood VS State of U. P. - Allahabad.
Analysis and Conclusion:Suits under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act are of a special character, with no fixed limitation period, and are governed by specific procedural provisions, including applicability of the Civil Procedure Code. While these suits aim to settle land rights and declaration of bhumidhar status, their proceedings are complex, often lengthy, and require strict adherence to procedural norms. Post-2006 revenue laws influence their maintainability, but the core principles emphasize proper issue framing and procedural fairness. Courts have consistently recognized the sui generis nature of these suits and have ruled accordingly in various cases Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad, Ramvir Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad, Kulpavitra Tyagi VS Board of Revenue Meerut - Allahabad.
References:- Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad- Ramvir Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad- Emperor VS Mantu Tiwari - 1926 0 Supreme(All) 515- Kulpavitra Tyagi VS Board of Revenue Meerut - Allahabad- Lt. Col. Vivek Sood VS State of U. P. - Allahabad- Sukhram VS Board of Revenue - Allahabad
In the complex world of land laws in Uttar Pradesh, disputes over rights in land are common. Property owners, farmers, and legal practitioners often grapple with questions like: Is the Land Revenue Act applicable to proceedings under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZA&LR Act)? This query—often phrased as 229B UPZA&LR Act applicability in UPJA&LR Act—highlights a critical intersection of revenue and land reform legislations. Understanding this can prevent procedural missteps in suits for declaration of rights.
This article breaks down the applicability, scope, and procedural nuances of Section 229B, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory provisions. Note: This is general information based on legal sources and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZA&LR Act) is a crucial provision for determining rights in land. It allows for the filing of suits for declaration of rights in relation to land. SANTOSH AGGARWAL VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI - Uttarakhand These suits are typically initiated to establish status as a bhumidhar (landholder with permanent rights) or to resolve disputes over possession and ownership recorded in revenue records.
Courts have consistently held that Section 229B provides the primary legal framework for determining rights in land in Uttar Pradesh. Daulat Singh VS Board of Revenue Uttarakhand Circuit Court Nainital - UttarakhandHem Chandra Balutia VS Madhwanand - UttarakhandKamla Prasad VS Krishna Kant Pathak - Supreme CourtBAL KRISHAN VS CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER - UttarakhandRavindra Pal Sing Negi VS Commissioner - Uttarakhand For instance, in various cases, suits under this section have been filed to challenge erroneous entries in land records or to affirm exclusive ownership. Bachai Pandey VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2279 - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2279 The provision states that such suits can be instituted before the appropriate revenue court, emphasizing its role in agrarian reforms post-zamindari abolition.
The Land Revenue Act of 1901 is a separate legislation that governs revenue matters in India, such as collection of land revenue, maintenance of records, and administrative revenue proceedings. It is not directly related to the determination of rights in land, which is primarily governed by the UPZA&LR Act. SANTOSH AGGARWAL VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI - Uttarakhand
Key takeaway: The Land Revenue Act of 1901 is not directly applicable to the determination of rights in land under Section 229B of the UPZA&LR Act. SANTOSH AGGARWAL VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI - Uttarakhand Instead, the UPZA&LR Act provides a comprehensive framework for resolving land disputes, including declaration of rights. State of Uttarakhand VS Amandeep Singh - UttarakhandAwdhesh Kumar Verma VS Aman Deep Singh - UttarakhandPraveen Singh VS Deepak Tiwari - UttarakhandJahid Hussain VS Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner - UttarakhandSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS MADAN SINGH - Uttarakhand
This distinction is vital because revenue matters (e.g., mutation entries) under the 1901 Act do not conclusively determine proprietary rights, which must be adjudicated under Section 229B. Admissions in mutation proceedings cannot solely form the basis of judgments in title suits. Green Land Public School Samiti, Duhai Ghaziabad VS State of U. P. - 2015 Supreme(All) 4063 - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 4063
Suits under Section 229B are of a special character, primarily aimed at declaration of rights as a bhumidhar. They involve scrutiny of land records, consolidation proceedings, and revenue entries. Courts stress the need for proper issue framing and procedural adherence, as these suits can pend for years. Ramvir Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - AllahabadBuddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - AllahabadEmperor VS Mantu Tiwari - 1926 0 Supreme(All) 515
From judicial observations: suit under Section 229B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed by private respondent No. 4 which was registered as Case No. 88 of 1982... So far as scope of proceeding/suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is concern... Bachai Pandey VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2279 - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2279
Another ruling notes: The petitioner had filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, on 24.12.2013. SUKHRAM vs BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS - Allahabad These proceedings ensure a thorough examination beyond summary revenue processes.
Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are applicable to suits under Section 229B, in view of Section 341 of the UPZA&LR Act and the UP Revenue Code, 2006. It is also material that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in view of the provisions contained under Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Lt. Col. Vivek Sood Vs. State Of U.P. And 15 Others - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 455 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 455
This ensures civil procedural safeguards, such as proper adjudication, issue framing, and appeals. Suits cannot be dismissed arbitrarily without framing issues. Kulpavitra Tyagi VS Board of Revenue Meerut - AllahabadLt. Col. Vivek Sood VS State of U. P. - Allahabad
Ex parte decrees under these suits operate as estoppel, even if based on prior revenue entries. Janardan and Another VS Jagdish Prasad and Others - 2014 Supreme(All) 660 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 660
The Limitation Act generally does not apply to suits under Section 229B, as these are suits of special character with no specific limitation period prescribed. Different limitation periods apply to different suits, excluding general Limitation Act provisions. Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - AllahabadKulpavitra Tyagi VS Board of Revenue Meerut - Allahabad
Post the enactment of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, some courts have questioned the maintainability of Section 229B suits filed after its commencement, equating it to Section 144 of the new Code. However, suits filed prior remain governed by the old Act. In order to appreciate the controversy... the perusal of Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act / Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be relevant... Lt. Col. Vivek Sood Vs. State Of U.P. And 15 Others - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 455 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 455Sukhram VS Board of Revenue - Allahabad
Dismissals often stem from procedural lapses, like improper issue framing or non-compliance. Ramvir Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - AllahabadBuddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - AllahabadLt. Col. Vivek Sood VS State of U. P. - Allahabad
For those facing land disputes in UP:- File under Section 229B for title declarations, not just revenue mutations.- Ensure CPC-compliant procedures to avoid dismissal.- Be aware of no fixed limitation, but act promptly to prevent adverse possession claims.- Post-2006 filings may face scrutiny under new revenue laws.
Compromise decrees, even by counsel, bind parties and operate as res judicata. Bansraj VS Moti - 2019 Supreme(All) 2172 - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 2172
Section 229B of the UPZA&LR Act remains the cornerstone for land rights declarations in Uttar Pradesh, distinct from the revenue-focused Land Revenue Act 1901. These special suits demand procedural rigor, with CPC applicability ensuring fairness. While the UP Revenue Code 2006 introduces nuances, core principles prioritize adjudication over summary processes.
Key Takeaways:- Use Section 229B for bhumidhar rights; Land Revenue Act is ancillary. SANTOSH AGGARWAL VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI - Uttarakhand- No Limitation Act bar; special character prevails. Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad- Frame issues properly to sustain suits. Ramvir Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad- Seek professional advice for case-specific strategy.
By understanding these provisions, stakeholders can navigate UP land laws more effectively. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence.
References:- UPZA&LR Act, 1950 (various sections)- Cited documents: SANTOSH AGGARWAL VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GARHWAL MANDAL, PAURI - Uttarakhand, Daulat Singh VS Board of Revenue Uttarakhand Circuit Court Nainital - Uttarakhand, Hem Chandra Balutia VS Madhwanand - Uttarakhand, Kamla Prasad VS Krishna Kant Pathak - Supreme Court, BAL KRISHAN VS CHIEF REVENUE COMMISSIONER - Uttarakhand, Ravindra Pal Sing Negi VS Commissioner - Uttarakhand, State of Uttarakhand VS Amandeep Singh - Uttarakhand, Awdhesh Kumar Verma VS Aman Deep Singh - Uttarakhand, Praveen Singh VS Deepak Tiwari - Uttarakhand, Jahid Hussain VS Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner - Uttarakhand, STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS MADAN SINGH - Uttarakhand, Bachai Pandey VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2279 - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2279, SUKHRAM vs BOARD OF REVENUE AND 4 OTHERS - Allahabad, Lt. Col. Vivek Sood Vs. State Of U.P. And 15 Others - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 455 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 455, DHARAMPAL SHARMA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand, MOHAN AND 2 OTHERS Vs State - Allahabad, Bansraj VS Moti - 2019 Supreme(All) 2172 - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 2172, MOHD. YAQUB KHAN (DEAD) VS JALIL KHAN (DEAD) - 2017 Supreme(All) 982 - 2017 0 Supreme(All) 982, Green Land Public School Samiti, Duhai Ghaziabad VS State of U. P. - 2015 Supreme(All) 4063 - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 4063, Janardan and Another VS Jagdish Prasad and Others - 2014 Supreme(All) 660 - 2014 0 Supreme(All) 660, Buddh Prakash VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad, Ramvir Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad, Emperor VS Mantu Tiwari - 1926 0 Supreme(All) 515, Kulpavitra Tyagi VS Board of Revenue Meerut - Allahabad, Lt. Col. Vivek Sood VS State of U. P. - Allahabad, Sukhram VS Board of Revenue - Allahabad
#Section229B, #UPZALRAct, #LandRightsUP
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which provides that the Limitation Act would be applicable to proceedings under the U.P. ... Article 137 of the Limitation Act relied upon by Sri Singh in any case is applicable only to applications and not to suits and therefore has no play. ... He further submitted that by cryptic order, the suit under Section 229B / 209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. #HL_....
Act, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the State after three days from deciding the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. ... Act and order dated 18.01.2013 passed by Assistant Collector First Class/Revenue Officer Mainpuri in Case No. 95 of 2009-10 under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (Ramvir Singh vs. Vinod and Others). ... #HL_....
The brief facts of the case are that suit under Section 229B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed by private respondent No. 4 which was registered as Case No. 88 of 1982. ... So far as scope of proceeding/suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is concern, this Court in the case of Pan Kumari vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others, reported in [2005 (99) RD 529] has held that suit under Section ....
Act are suit of special character and no limitation is provided for filing suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 18. ... Act but the impugned orders have been passed in illegal manner dismissing the petitioner's suit under Section 229B/176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act only on the ground of Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred ....
Act were applicable and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in mentioning that the Suit was filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. 4. Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the U.P. ... Dismissal was essentially on the ground that the Suit was not maintainable under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, after the commencement of the U....
Act were applicable and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in mentioning that the Suit was filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. ... The petitioner had filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, on 24.12.2013. Thereafter, some report etc. ... Dismissal was essentially on the ground that the Suit was not main....
It is also material that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in view of the provisions contained under Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ... In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act / Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be relevant for perusal, ....
Act- Section 229B. ... It is also material that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in view of the provisions contained under Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ... Act / Section 214 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 will be also relevant by which provisions of Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable i....
by the petitioner, who is a plaintiff under the authorities concerned, who passes an order Devi was not a party to the proceedings under The power to grant of an interim order in a proceedings under Section 229B
Act. ... Act, which is a suit of special character, as such, trial Court is directed to decide the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ... Act, which has been dismissed by Commissioner vide order dated 21.3.2022, hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ... The brief facts of the case are that a suit under S....
Act were applicable and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in mentioning that the Suit was filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the Suit itself was filed on 24.12.2013, the provisions of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.
It is not possible to cancel the sale-deed before finding that the defendant No. 1 has been wrongly entered as co-sharer with the plaintiff on the land in suit and the plaintiffs are exclusive owner in possession of the land in suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1991 Supreme Court page 2234 and argues that the compromise decree signed by counsel and not by parties in person is binding", executable and operates as res judicata, even if it extends beyond subject-matter of suit. Bu....
(v) Whether the suit is barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Whether the pedigree given in the plaint is correct? (iv) Whether the suit is barred under Section 229B of the Z.A.L.R. Act?
The first is as to whether the three judgements passed against the petitioner are based exclusively on the alleged admissions made in mutation proceedings which, according to the petitioner, is not permissible in view of the various judgements cited on her behalf. The other point is regarding filing and withdrawal of the suit under section 229B of the UP ZA & LR Act by the contesting respondent, regarding the land which is subject-matter of this writ petition.
He has further submitted that the decree, though ex parte, would still operates as estoppel against the petitioners. In 1964 Fasli, the land in dispute was recorded in the names of both Dwarika and Man Bahal, even though it is admitted on record that Dwarika had executed a sale-deed of his entire 1/5 share in the khata in dispute in favour of third parties, which he had inherited from Thakurdin, being one of the five sons of Thakurdin. 1 and the shares of the parties determined as per the admi....
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
