Latest news with #UPRevenueCode
Hindustan Times
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SDM has no right to declare a person as owner of land: Allahabad HC
Prayagraj, The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the sub-divisional magistrate has no right to declare a person as the owner of a land. Such an aspect needs adjudication by the sub-divisional officer in the appropriate suit proceedings under Section 144 of the Code, 2006, where the state as well as the gram panchayat shall be necessary parties, the court added. The above observation was made by Justice Kshitij Shailendra while deciding a writ petition filed by one Jayraj Singh, who moved the court with a prayer seeking court direction to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant absolute bhumidhari rights in favour of the petitioner in view of his long occupancy on the land. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of certain previous proceedings in relation to the lease granted in favour of the petitioner and with the passage of time, the petitioner acquired the status of bhumidhar with transferable rights. After going through the provisions of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as well as UP Revenue Code, the court said an SDO or any other officer has not been held to be empowered on administrative side to grant such a declaration in favour of concerned tenure holder under the aforesaid provisions. "In view of scheme of the Code, 2006, notwithstanding that the petitioner might have acquired status as that of Bhumidhar with transferable rights, such an aspect needs adjudication by the Sub-Divisional Officer in appropriate suit proceedings under Section 144 of the Code, 2006, where the State as well as Gram Panchayat shall be necessary parties and would have their say in the proceedings, and not an administrative side on a bare application," the court added.
Time of India
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC concerned over litigants' aggressive approach towards judicial officers
1 2 Prayagraj: Expressing concern that the litigants are increasingly turning aggressive towards the judiciary because of the reluctance of courts to use their contempt of court powers , the Allahabad high court dismissed a petition and imposed Rs 5,000 costs on the petitioner after the court found lack of evidence to support the allegations against the presiding officer. Justice JJ Munir further observed that while courts hesitate to invoke contempt powers out of respect for citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech, this liberal approach cannot be misused to make scandalous allegations against judges. "It is unfortunate that in contemporary times, litigants have turned aggressive because for one reason or the other, the courts are eschewing invocation of their power of criminal contempt. The restraint or the hesitation comes from honouring the citizen's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and their right to ventilate their grievances. This does not mean that any kind of scandalous allegations without basis can be hurled at the court and got away with," the court said while dismissing the plea on April 25. The case involved a plea challenging the Board of Revenue's refusal to transfer an application under the UP Revenue Code, 2006 from the additional commissioner (judicial), 3rd Bareilly to another court. The petitioner alleged bias and connivance between the presiding officer and the respondent, citing delays and long adjournments as evidence. However, during the course of hearing, the high court found these claims to be "utterly scandalous" and unsupported by evidence. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Scarlett Johansson, 40, Shows Off Her Real Size In A New Vacation Photos 33 Bridges Undo "A wrong order or a wrong procedure does not lead to an inference of bias. Likewise, mere delay on the part of the presiding officer in hearing the revision is no ground to infer bias," the court said. The court stressed that accusations of judicial connivance demand a high standard of responsibility and evidence. "To make such an application without any material shows not a sense of freedom to express amongst citizens who are litigants but virtually extreme indiscipline and lack of sense of propriety, to say the least," court said.
Hindustan Times
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC slams litigants for fuelling court delays, calls it a ‘menace'
The Allahabad high court has observed that the role of litigants in contributing to judicial delays is often overlooked. Calling it a 'menace' that is 'neither spoken of nor condemned', the court opined that this tendency must be 'firmly discouraged'. Justice JJ Munir termed it 'surprising' that despite widespread protests over delays in the judicial system, litigants often appear in court only to seek adjournments that suit their convenience. 'It is surprising that despite such widespread protest against delays in courts, citizens of the country, in whatever position they are, when they appear in court as litigants, love to seek time and enjoy adjournments that suit their cause. The contribution of the litigating public to delays in court, which, in fact, is a menace, is neither spoken of nor condemned. In any case, this tendency has to be discouraged firmly,' the court stated in its one-page order dated April 23. These observations came after the court expressed dismay over a Tehsildar's written instruction to the Chief Standing Counsel (CSC), requesting additional time to submit a report. The court was hearing a PIL filed by Shailendra Prajapati, who alleged that a pond in village Bendui, Post Saren, Pargana Atrauliya, Tehsil Budhanpur, Azamgarh district, had been encroached upon by private parties. It was pointed out that the Tehsildar of Budhanpur had already passed an eviction order under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, but it had not been executed. Earlier, on April 10, the court had asked the Tehsildar to submit a report on the non-compliance of the eviction order. However, through the CSC, the Tehsildar requested more time to file the report. Rejecting the request and rebuking the broader trend of adjournment-seeking, the court, in its April 23 order, directed the Tehsildar to file his affidavit within three days or appear in person on the next date of hearing.
Time of India
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Plaintiffs buying time via adjournments a menace: HC
1 2 3 4 Prayagraj: Observing that role of litigants in contributing to judicial delays is often overlooked the Allahabad High Court termed it a "menace" that is "neither spoken of nor condemned" and opined that this tendency must be "discouraged firmly". Justice J J Munir said it was "surprising" that despite widespread protests over court delays, litigants, on appearing in court, sought and enjoyed adjournments that suited their cause. "It is surprising that despite such widespread protest against delays in courts, citizens of the country, in whatever position they are, while appearing in court as litigants, love to seek time and enjoy adjournments that suits their cause. The contribution of the litigating public to delays in court, which, in fact, is a menace, is neither spoken of nor condemned. In any case, this tendency has to be discouraged firmly," the court remarked in its one-page order dated Apr 23. The observations were made by the court dismayed over a tehsildar's written instructions to chief standing counsel requesting him to seek some additional time from the court to submit a report. The court was dealing with a PIL petition filed by Shailendra Prajapati, wherein it was alleged that a pond in Bendui village, Post Saren, Pargana Atrauliya, Tehsil Budhanpur, Azamgarh district was encroached by private respondents. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Beyond Text Generation: An AI Tool That Helps You Write Better Grammarly Install Now Undo It was also pointed out that order of eviction was passed by the Tehsildar Budhanpur in proceedings under section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, however, the same had not been carried out so far. On Apr 10, court had called for a report from tehsildar over alleged non-compliance of the order for eviction. Tehsildar, through chief standing counsel (CSC), sought additional time to file the report. Rejecting request as well as rebuking litigants in general for seeking adjournments, court in its order dated Apr 23, directed the tehsildar to file his affidavit within three days or appear in person on next date of hearing.
