Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the allotment order was jurisdiction because the landlord applicants were not duly served with notice and the Court relied on inadmissible material to proceed ex parte, thereby making interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India available despite the bar in Section 6 of the U.P. Land Utilization Act, No. V of 1948.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required service of notice before land could be brought under cultivation and allotted. The finding of service in the present case rested on the process server's report, but that report was not verified by affidavit and the serving officer was not examined on oath as contemplated by the applicable procedural requirement reflected in Rule 78 of the Revenue Court Manual and Order 5, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that such an unverified report was not admissible evidence to establish service. Without proof of proper notice, the essential precondition for exercising jurisdiction to proceed ex parte was absent. Section 6 of the Act could not bar the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.
Conclusion: The order of allotment was invalid for want of jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.