Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Paras Nath vs Board Of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad And ... on 19 July, 1985

State Of U.P. And Another vs Board Of Revenue And 3 Others on 19 November, 2024

23. Learned counsel have placed reliance upon judgments of Muhammad Khalilur Rahman Khan vs. Mohammad Muzammilullah Khan, AIR 1933 ALL 468, Durga Prasad vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad AIR 1970 ALL 159, Basdeo and others vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad, AIR 1974 ALL 337, Paras Nath vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad, AIR 1986 ALL 111, Kashi Math Sansthan and another vs. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirta Swamy and another, (2010) 1 SCC 689, Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and another vs. Ganga Bai Menariya (D) through LRs and others, Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012, decided on 20.02.2024, State of U.P. vs. Ram Prasad Saxena, First Appeal No. 566 of 1996, decided on 14.08.2012 and Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan, Civil Appeal No. 5575-76 of 2021, decided on 07.09.2021.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Daya Shankar And 5 Others vs Board Of Revenue And 6 Others on 30 September, 2022

In view of ratio of law laid down in Paras Nath (Supra), Babu Ram (Supra) as well as according to the provisions contained under Rule 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for preparation of the kurra, the authorities have to observe certain principles, which are mentioned in the said Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, but the same has not been followed and the objection against the kurra filed by the petitioners has been arbitrarily rejected by the trial court and maintained by the first and second appellate court, which is wholly illegal and against the provisions contained under Rule 109 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, as such the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2022 passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, judgment and order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Additional Commissioner, (Administration) Bareilly Mandal Bareilly, judgment dated 22.03.2021 and decree dated 31.03.2021 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bilsi, Budaun are wholly illegal and liable to be set aside, the same are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back before the trial court to decide the objection of the petitioners dated 22.10.2018 afresh in accordance with the provisions contained under rules 109 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Daya Shanker Son Of Ganga And Ram Subhag ... vs The Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 23 October, 2007

6. Learned Counsel for both the parties have categorically stated that if plaintiffs are held to be fixed rate tenants then the suit is to be decreed, However, if the plaintiffs are held to be Zamindars then the suit is to be dismissed. This statement of law is perfectly in accordance with the Full bench authority of this Court reported in Paras Nath v. Board of Revenue 1986 A.L.J. 21. In the said Full Bench authority also the matter related to Urban Area Zamindari Abolition Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1