Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Roshan Lal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 19511 ALL

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19511 ALL
Judgement Date : 28 May, 2024

Allahabad High Court

Roshan Lal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 May, 2024

Author: Ashutosh Srivastava

Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:103875
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 409 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Roshan Lal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Yogesh Kumar Vaish
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
 

Heard Shri Yogesh Kumar Vaish, learned counsel for the review applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The instant review application has been filed seeking the review of the judgment and order dated 21.7.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 20149 of 2018 (Roshan Lal versus State of U.P. and 3 others) whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed by recording a finding that the authorities committed no error in recording the finding that the land in dispute was covered by Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and no Bhumidhari rights could accrue thereon and consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits, was dismissed.

The review application is reported beyond time by one day. A delay condonation application supported by an affidavit has been filed seeking the condonation of delay occasioned and for hearing the review application on merits. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State/respondents does not oppose the condonation of delay. The delay of one day in filing the review application is condoned. The delay condonation application stands allowed. The review application shall now be treated to have been filed within time.

The review of the impugned order dated 21.7.2023 has been sought on the ground that the petitioner being a landless agricultural and belonging to Scheduled Caste Community was allotted the plot in question, by the Land Management Committee. No proceedings for cancellation of the patta was initiated by the respondents. The land was recorded as Banjar and not river, sand and Banjar and not covered under Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The restoration application filed by the Gaon Sabha was politically motivated. The Halka Lekhpal submitted the false report. The land in dispute is Banjar and as per the Khasra report the land is fit for agricultural purposes. The findings of the Courts are perverse. Even if the petitioner is not entitled to get Bhumidhari with transferable right, he is entitled to Bhumidhari with non transferable rights. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner has taken a loan of Rs.4,20,000/- by mortgaging the property in question and the petitioner and his family shall be driven to starvation.

I have heard learned counsel for the review applicant and have perused the record.

Both the Sub Divisional Officers under his order dated 7.1.2018 as also the Revisional Authority have recorded findings of fact on the strength of the CH Form 41 and CH Form 45 holding that the land in dispute 288 (M) area 0.202 hectare allotted to the petitioner under the lease was recorded as river, sand and Banjar and was land covered by Section 77 of the Code, 2006 and no Bhumidhari rights could accrue in respect thereof. The findings of fact cannot be interfered with. No material has been brought on record to show that the land leased out to the petitioner was not covered by Section 77 of the Code, 2006. The petitioner has not filed any documents to show that Plot No. 288 M/1 area 0.202 hectare is not covered by Section 77 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

The provisions of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered, rather to correct the error if any, which is apparent on the face of the record/order without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed in the order sought to be reviewed.

No such error on the face of the record has been pointed out.

In view of the above, the Court finds no substance in the review application. It is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 28.5.2024

Ravi Prakash

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter