AJAB SINGH & ORS. versus ANTRAM AND ORS.

AJAB SINGH & ORS. versus ANTRAM AND ORS.

Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly applicable to proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, thus revision by respondent-minors was not time barred. Findings on non-possession by appellants and the lack of continuous possession justify not recording their names as Bhumidar. Superior court interference unwarranted as findings are not perverse nor jurisdictionally erroneous.

Parties
Appellants: Ajab Singh & Ors.; Respondents: Antram & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation for Minors, Physical Possession, Bhumidar Status, Scheduled Caste Beneficiaries, Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority
Land Reforms Limitation Limitation for Minors Physical Possession Bhumidar Status Scheduled Caste Beneficiaries Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajab Singh & Ors.

Appellants

Antram & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Applicability of Section 6 of Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
  2. 2 Whether revisional authority erred in entertaining time-barred revision
  3. 3 Status of actual physical possession for Bhumidar recordation

Ratio Decidendi

Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly applicable to proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, thus revision by respondent-minors was not time barred. Findings on non-possession by appellants and the lack of continuous possession justify not recording their names as Bhumidar. Superior court interference unwarranted as findings are not perverse nor jurisdictionally erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs
  • Order of High Court and revisional authority affirmed