Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vikas Chaturvedi v. The Board Of Revenue U.P. At Lucknow & Others - WRIT - B No. 29546 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10934 (4 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29546 of 2006

Vikas Chaturvedi Vs.  The Board of Revenue U.P. and others


Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent no.3 - International Society for Krishna Conscious Anyour Parikrama Marg, Post Goverdhan, Tehsil and District Mathura.  Undisputedly respondent no.4 Maharaj Bhawani Singh, son of Sri Maharaj Vishwa Nath Singh, resident of Narain bagh Post Narain Bagh, Tehsil & District Chhatarpur, M.P. was previously owner/bhoomidhar of plot in dispute i.e. plot no.77.  There is very serious dispute in between petitioner and respondent no.3 about the current ownership/bhoomidhari of the said plot.  Both claim to be valid transferees.

This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 28 U.P. Land Revenue Act.  The said proceedings are alleged to have been initiated by Respondent no.4.  However, according to the learned counsel for respondent no.3, Maharaj Bhawani Singh- respondent no.4 never filed any such application and he has also filed an application subsequently stating therein that he never filed the original application under Section 28 Land Revenue Act.

Petitioner filed application for impleadment at the place of Maharaj Bhawani Singh in proceedings under Section 28 of the Act which has been rejected by the impugned order.

I completely fail to understand as to how correctness of sale deed of either of the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent no.3 can be adjudged in proceedings under Section 28 Land Revenue Act which deal with correction of map.

Writ petition is disposed of with liberty to either of the parties to initiate suitable proceedings for vindication of their rights and seeking cancellation of sale deed of other party.  If such proceeding is already pending then this question shall be decided therein.  Proceedings under Section 28 of Land Revenue Act have got nothing to do with the dispute of title.  Title has to be decided either by regular civil court or revenue court depending upon the nature of the allegation.  If petitioner has got a valid title of the land then he is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 28 and the order rejecting his impleadment application will not be treated as a bar for initiation of fresh proceedings.  By way of abundant precaution it is reiterated that the authorities in the impugned proceedings under Section 28 Land Revenue Act shall not make any attempt to decide the disputed question of title.  It is wholly foreign to the scope of Section 28 of U.P.L.R. Act.

With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.