Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Kanhaiyalal VS D. R. Banaji...

Checking relevance for Jitendra Singh VS Ministry of Environment...

Jitendra Singh VS Ministry of Environment - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1293 : UP Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 57: (a) Repeal of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and vesting of common ponds and local areas in the State does not change the nature of land contrary to revenue records nor defeat the long-established rights of local people on commons; (b) Common lands vest in village communities and are non-alienable; (c) Long duration of illegal occupation or huge expenditure on constructions thereon cannot justify condoning the illegal act or regularising illegal possession.Checking relevance for Sadiqua Begum VS Board Of Revenue, M. P. ...

Checking relevance for Begam Suraiya Rashid VS State Of M. P. ...

Checking relevance for Maharana Shri Jayavantsinhji Ranmalsinhji: Sardar Joravarkhanji Latifkhanji: Balwantsinhji Sahebsinhji: Thakur Vikramsinhji Manharsinhji: Maharana Shri Jayavantsinhji Ranmalsinhji VS State Of Bombay...

Checking relevance for Thakoreshri Maharasingh Ji Dolatsinghji VS State Of Gujarat...

Checking relevance for Reeta Devi VS Board of Revenue U. P. ...

Reeta Devi VS Board of Revenue U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1278 : The UP Revenue Code, 2006, specifically Section 231, provides that all cases pending before the State Government or any revenue Court immediately before the commencement of the Code of 2006, whether in appeal, revision, review or otherwise, shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate law, which would have been applicable to them had the Code of 2006 not been passed. This means that despite the repeal of earlier enactments like the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the right to avail the remedy of revision under Section 333 of that Act survives the repeal, and such revision remains maintainable in cases instituted and pending prior to the coming into force of the Code of 2006.Checking relevance for Shiv Bachan Yadav VS State of U. P. ...

Shiv Bachan Yadav VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1950 : The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 contains express provisions governing appeals, which take precedence over the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Specifically, Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, read with Rule 183 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, establishes a self-contained procedure for filing appeals under the Code. Rule 188 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 contains a non-obstante clause stating that where express provisions exist in the Code or its rules, they apply notwithstanding anything in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Limitation Act, 1963. This means that the procedural requirements under the U.P. Revenue Code, including the necessity of filing a certified copy of the decree, are governed exclusively by the Code and its rules, and not by the general procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that the appeal was maintainable despite the absence of a certified copy of the decree because the U.P. Revenue Code''''s own provisions govern the appeal process and override general procedural requirements.Checking relevance for Akeedan VS State of U. P. ...

Akeedan VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1971 : Section 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is categorical in its provision that the remedies available under the entire Code of 2006 in respect of proceedings that were instituted before the Revenue Courts under the old enactment (U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901) which was repealed by the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been saved. The term ''''pending proceeding'''' in Section 231 means all cases pending before the State Government or any revenue Court immediately before the commencement of the Code, reflecting the legislative intent to cover all matters not yet concluded. The Supreme Court in S.K. Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1971 SC 1120) defined ''''pending'''' as a matter that is not concluded and where the court or tribunal can still make an order, meaning the case remains active until final disposal. Furthermore, an order on an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 is appealable and revisable in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act itself, and the provisions of Sections 210 and 219 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are attracted and can be invoked even after the enforcement of the Code.Checking relevance for Leellu VS State of U. P. ...

Leellu VS State of U. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 2275 : The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, specifically Section 67, empowers authorities to prevent damage, misappropriation, and wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat property. Rule 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 mandates comprehensive and specific proceedings before any conclusion under Section 67. Additionally, Rule 186 of the Rules, 2016 states that although the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not apply to summary proceedings under the Code, the principles of natural justice and those enshrined in the CPC must be observed. Section 225-A, read with Rule 192, provides that questions in summary proceedings shall be decided upon affidavits, with cross-examination permitted only if the Revenue Officer deems it necessary. These provisions establish that proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and require adherence to principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua.

• Revenue Code 2006 - The U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, governs revenue-related proceedings, including cases initiated under Section 67, Section 24, Section 131, and other provisions. Multiple cases involve proceedings under Section 67(1), often relating to land disputes, construction, or boundary issues, with courts emphasizing the importance of following proper procedural timelines and remedies ANIL TIWARI Vs STATE OF U P AND 13 OTHERS - Allahabad, RAMAGYA TIWARI AND 3 OTHERS Vs State - Allahabad, UMA SHANKER Vs State - Allahabad, PANKAJ KUMAR KUSHWAHA Vs State - Allahabad.

• Proceedings under Section 67 - Frequently invoked in disputes over land and construction, with courts highlighting the need for timely decision-making within stipulated periods. Courts also recognize that cases pending before revenue courts before the enactment of the 2006 Code are to be decided with reference to Sections 230(2)(d) and 231, ensuring continuity and proper adjudication Charan Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others - Allahabad.

• Appeals and Remedies - The Code provides avenues for appeals, such as second appeals under Section 208, and remedies through competent authorities under Sections 24 and 67. Courts have stressed that petitions under the Code must be filed through proper channels, like Standing Counsel, and that orders passed under various sections are subject to appeal within prescribed periods SHAFIQ AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS Vs State - Allahabad, KUNDAN PRASAD CHAUHAN Vs State - Allahabad.

• Judicial Interpretation - Courts have clarified that certain procedures, like the filing of writ petitions, are only maintainable if procedural requirements, such as representation through Standing Counsel, are met. They also emphasize that proceedings initiated under earlier laws are preserved under Section 230(2)(d), and that the Code's provisions are to be read comprehensively to ensure justice SMT. ATA NASIBA Vs State - Allahabad, SANJAY KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS - Allahabad.

• Key Sections - Sections 67, 24, 131, 230(2)(d), 73, and 72 are frequently referenced, each relating to specific procedural steps, appeals, or case management within the revenue framework. Notably, Section 67 deals with land disputes, while Sections 24 and 131 pertain to boundary and construction matters. Sections 72 and 73 address representation and procedural restrictions multiple references.

Analysis and Conclusion:The Revenue Code 2006 provides a structured legal framework for handling revenue-related disputes in Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing timely adjudication, proper procedural conduct, and avenues for appeal. Courts have consistently underscored the importance of following prescribed procedures, such as filing through authorized representatives and adhering to timelines. The provisions ensure the continuity of pending cases from earlier laws and establish clear mechanisms for redressal, including appeals and judicial review. Overall, the Code aims to streamline revenue proceedings while safeguarding the rights of parties involved.