#revenue proceedings

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that appellate courts must grant interim protection against coercive ejectment orders under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, to prevent irreversible loss of property and income during pendency of appeal. This sets a binding standard for revenue authorities across Uttar Pradesh, ensuring procedural fairness in land and tenancy disputes.

Allahabad HC reinforces that pending revenue cases under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 must be decided within six months, emphasizing statutory compliance and timely justice. The ruling directs authorities to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure service of notice to all parties, setting a precedent for administrative efficiency in revenue disputes.

Allahabad HC directs Tehsildar to remove re-encroachment on public land under Rule 67 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, rejecting delay due to pending criminal cases.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that revenue authorities cannot invoke suo motu revision under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code after 180 days from the date they became aware of an illegality. This sets a strict procedural deadline to prevent arbitrary, delayed interference with land rights, protecting beneficiaries of long-standing allotments from indefinite administrative uncertainty.

MP High Court directs Sub-Divisional Officer to decide statutory appeals under Section 44(1) of M.P.L.R.C. 1959 within two months, staying encroachment removal orders pending appeal. The ruling protects landowners from dispossession before appellate adjudication, reinforcing due process in revenue proceedings.

MP High Court Gwalior rules that eviction during pendency of an appeal under Section 248 of the MP Land Revenue Code violates natural justice and causes irreparable prejudice. The court directed status quo to protect appellants from coercive action until the appeal is decided, reinforcing the principle that procedural fairness must precede enforcement.

Calcutta High Court rules that mutation proceedings under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, are purely administrative and cannot be stayed due to pending civil suits or status quo orders. The judgment clarifies that revenue authorities must proceed with mutation applications regardless of title disputes before civil courts, ensuring timely updates to land records.

MP High Court rules that land mutation orders passed without notice to affected parties violate principles of natural justice under Section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code. The court set aside the impugned orders, emphasizing that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in revenue proceedings, directly impacting landowners and administrative authorities.

MP High Court rules that Section 29 of the MP Land Revenue Code imposes no bar on filing successive transfer applications before revenue authorities. The court quashed an order rejecting a second application, emphasizing that procedural fairness and natural justice require reconsideration of each valid request on merits, regardless of prior applications.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that filing a mutation application decades after a final dismissal of a title suit, relying solely on an unregistered sale deed, constitutes abuse of process and raises credible suspicion of forgery - even in the absence of statutory limitation. This sets a critical precedent for revenue authorities to scrutinize chronologically implausible claims in mutation proceedings, especially where title has been judicially settled.

The Rajasthan High Court has struck down the Board of Revenue’s ex parte order cancelling Khatedari rights of a deceased landholder, ruling that natural justice demands notice to legal heirs even after death. This sets a critical precedent for revenue proceedings, ensuring heirs cannot be deprived of inherited property rights without a fair hearing under Section 82.

Chhattisgarh High Court quashes vague eviction notices lacking Khasra number or revenue case reference, affirming procedural fairness under Article 21 and natural justice.

Madras High Court holds that land survey authorities must issue notice to all adverse claimants before demarcation, ensuring natural justice in revenue proceedings.