Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing The Additional Commissioner Revenue vs Akhalaq Hussain . on 3 March, 2020

Mahesh Chand vs Brijesh Kumar And Ors. on 15 February, 2024

15. The respondents have placed reliance upon the recitals in the exchange deed in which it is mentioned that the land in question is not an "agricultural land" and also the counter-affidavit of the State filed before the High Court, wherein it is mentioned that the hotel in the disputed land is situated in the market area of Munsiari township. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that for changing the nature of land from "agricultural" to "abadi", declaration as stipulated in Sections 143 and 144 is required. The provisions under Section 143 of the Act are initiated suo motu or on an application moved by a bhumidhar with transferable rights and an enquiry is required to be conducted by the Assistant Collector as prescribed under the Act. Section 143 of the Act reads as under:
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Purushottam Sarraf vs State Of U.P. And Others on 27 May, 2024

Commissioner Revenue and Others vs. Akhalaq Hussain and Another, in Civil Appeal No.7346 of 2010 decided on 3.3.2020, in order to demonstrate that unless the declaration is made under Section 143 of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act"), the land land cannot be treated to be abadi. They also submitted that land in dispute is an agricultural land, as such, there was no illegality in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 30.5.1995.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Shyamo Devi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Thr. ... on 16 May, 2024

11. Thus, it emerges from the afore-stated facts that the authorities initiated the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment initially based on the report dated 13.06.2007 of the Lekhpal which was undisputedly after 13 years from the date of allotment. It is no doubt true that there is no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings under the UPZALR Act as contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. This Court in Additional Commssioner, Revenue and Others v. Akhalaq Hussain and Another, (2020) 4 SCC 507 vide paragraph 28 has held that sub-section (6) of Section 122C empowers the collector to enquire with regard to the manner of allotment being irregular and may proceed to cancel the allotment if he satisfies that such allotment is irregular. Section 122C (6) reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Santosh Kumari vs Additional Commissioner Chitrakoot ... on 29 January, 2025

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State, by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported as Additional Commissioner Revenue And Others v. Akhalaq Hussain And Another- 4 (2020) 4 SCC 507, submits that the order issuing the patta being void ab initio, the question of limitation would not arise. Therefore, he pressed into service Section 166 of the Act which states rhat every transfer made in contravention of the Act, shall be void.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1