Latest news with #UPRevenueCode
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Abstinence from duty by presiding officer on strike call by bar assn illegal: HC
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has said abstinence from professional duty by presiding officers on a call given by the bar association was illegal and those officials who comply with such strike resolutions could face misconduct charges. While making these observations, Justice JJ Munir issued a show cause notice to the sub divisional magistrate (SDM), Koil, Aligarh for adjourning a case in pursuance of a resolution of the local bar association of Aligarh calling upon the lawyers to abstain from judicial work. "Accepting such a strike resolution may amount to misconduct on the part of the presiding officer and could invite a recommendation for disciplinary action, including removal from office," the court said in its order dated July 28. The case pertains to a restoration application filed by one Satyapal Singh before the SDM under section 38(2) of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The case was adjourned on July 25, 2025, since the advocates were abstaining from work on that day and the matter was fixed for July 28. Coming down heavily on the conduct of the SDM, the court observed: "It is well settled that any kind of abstinence from professional duty on a call by the bar association is absolutely illegal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 11 Foods That Help In Healing Knee Pain Naturally | Zen Life Mag Undo If no one appeared to press the restoration application and there was a resolution by the Bar, the court could not have sided with the resolution and fallen foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court." The court also referred to certain Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Ex-Capt Harish Uppal v. Union of India and another 2003 and many others. The court also sought full particulars of the bar association, its president and secretary in the affidavit on whose call the advocates abstained from their duties. The matter will now be heard on August 6.
Time of India
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Can legislative committees interfere in Revenue deptt work?
Representative imageRepresentative image SC to examine their power to interfere in quasi-judicial functions New Delhi: Can parliamentary and legislative committees interfere in the quasi-judicial work of the revenue department? The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine this question arising from the directions issued by a parliamentary committee in the UP Assembly in a land dispute case. Appearing for a petitioner, senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi that multiple directions have been issued by the Uttar Pradesh govt, on the instructions of legislative committees, to revenue officers asking them to take 'necessary action' and submit report on the land dispute. 'Such directions directly and substantially impinge on free and independent adjudication by the revenue authorities in pending proceedings,' Tiwari said, which prompted the bench to entertain the petition and say that the question of law arising in this case is – 'Whether legislative committees can interfere in quasi-judicial functions of revenue authorities?' The issue pertained to demarcation and determination of possession of a plot, which according to the petitioner could be gone into by the competent authority, in this case the sub-divisional magistrate, under the UP Revenue Code. Tiwari said a proper and effective adjudication by the revenue authorities is not possible if there is regular and constant interference from the legislative Committees. He said the Allahabad HC erred by failing to issue appropriate directions to prevent interference by political authorities in the adjudicatory process before Revenue Authorities. The petitioner informed SC that he had filed a complaint before the Assistant Collector, Meja, Prayagraj under section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 against one R P Shukla, who using his influence, had encroached upon the public lands causing great hardships and obstruction to people in pursuing their agricultural activities. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo 'While the petitioner was diligently pursuing the remedies available to him under the law, questions were being raised in the Vidhan Sabha and directions were being issued by the Secretariat to Revenue Officers asking them to take necessary action and to submit report regarding the land dispute concerning RP Shukla,' he alleged.
News18
09-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
Allahabad HC Raps Officials Over Pond Encroachment, Summons Gorakhpur SSP
Last Updated: The case pertains to a pond measuring 0.214 hectares, recorded in revenue records as non-cultivable submerged land In a stern rebuke to state authorities, the Allahabad High Court has summoned the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Gorakhpur, for failing to provide police protection to a court-appointed commissioner investigating illegal construction on a designated pond in Gorakhpur district. The order was passed by Justice JJ Munir while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Bhanu Pratap and others, seeking removal of encroachments over Arazi No. 217, a 0.214 hectare pond in village Katya, Tappa Haveli, Pargana Unwal, Tehsil Khajni. Taking note of a report submitted by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur, who had been deputed to conduct a field survey using advanced surveying methods, the court expressed 'shock" that no police force was made available despite explicit directions. The court recorded the commissioner's account that, 'when I reached at the spot, people and villagers were present and some of them argue & confront but due to my tactful conversation they become cool & calm and thereafter survey commission were started and completed successfully". The case pertains to a pond measuring 0.214 hectares, recorded in revenue records as non-cultivable submerged land. Alleging illegal construction by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and encroachment by a private individual, Sant Raj Yadav, the petitioners approached the high court through a PIL. Earlier, the court had directed demolition of illegal constructions by both the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and the said private encroacher. While authorities submitted that a pump house had been removed and a final eviction order was passed under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, the petitioners alleged that structures, including pillars of an overhead water tank, remained intact and Yadav's house continued to stand. Faced with these conflicting claims, the court ordered a local investigation under judicial supervision with technical and police support. It has now sought personal appearance of the SSP Gorakhpur on July 16 at 2pm to explain the 'most irresponsible" conduct in defying court orders and risking the safety of the judicial commissioner. The matter will be heard next on July 16, 2025. view comments First Published: July 09, 2025, 14:36 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
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.
