Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14
The petitioner, Raju, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) of Prayagraj to decide the pending case No.148 of 2024 (Urmila Devi vs. Raju) under Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The petitioner alleged that the case, arising from a …
Petitioner Savitri filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Azamgarh Division, to decide Revision No. 388/2025 (Ashwani alias Mauzi v. Tehsildar) filed under Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, which had …
Animesh filed a writ petition under Section 29/41 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent to decide Appeal No.149/M, which challenges a 15 April 2023 order of the Deputy Collector. The petitioner alleged that the appeal, filed under Section 210 …
Smt Geeta filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Chief Revenue Officer, District Azamgarh, to expedite a pending proceeding (Case No.834 of 2024) under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The proceeding had initially been allowed by the Chief Revenue Officer on …
Dashrath filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) of Azamgarh to decide a pending land revenue case (No. 1022 of 2026) under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The petitioner argued that the proceeding, remanded on 16‑12‑2025, was not …
The petitioners, Santosh Kumar and another, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23 September 2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 501/2009‑2010 (Rajendra Kumar vs. Smt. Meera Devi). They contended that the order was made against the deceased Meera Devi, who had died on 28 …
The appellant Suvej Singh challenged a High Court order that had set aside earlier revenue authority decisions and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of a map correction application filed by the private respondents after a 17‑year gap. The private respondents had previously sought …
Maharaji Educational Trust, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and HUDCO appealed against a Lucknow High Court order that directed the Parishad to demarcate 42.45 acres of mortgaged land and to declare 21 acres as unencumbered, based on a sale agreement with SGS Construction. The Supreme Court held that …
The appellant, Seva Lal, obtained a mutation order from the Naib Tehsildar, which the respondents challenged under Section 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901. The Sub‑Divisional Officer remanded the matter, leading the appellant to file a revision under Section 218 before the Additional …
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged a High Court order that had interfered with the executive's decision to create a new district, Baghpat, under a notification issued pursuant to Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1908. …
The appellants challenged the acquisition of about 496 acres of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming the land was "abadi" and therefore exempt under Uttar Pradesh's policy not to acquire village settlements. The Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. State of U.P. directed that the parties …
The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corp. of U.P. (PICUP) advanced a loan to Shefali Papers Ltd., secured by mortgage and guarantee bonds executed by Kailash Nath Agrawal and others. After the company was declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), …
The respondents, appointed as Kurk Amins on commission basis by District Magistrates/Collectors of Uttar Pradesh, were tasked with recovering outstanding dues of cooperative societies. The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that such Kurk Amins, being appointed under a scheme of the Registrar of …
The appellant, Chandrika Prasad, claimed adhivasi rights over two agricultural plots on the basis that his father, Ram Harakh, was a sub‑tenant of a mortgagee and thus entitled to protection under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. The respondents, who had …
