{"id":207149,"date":"2010-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-24T23:11:17","modified_gmt":"2015-01-24T17:41:17","slug":"banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                              [Reserved]\n\n              Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23713 of 2009\n\n\nBansu                                                          Petitioner\n\n                                   Vs.\n\nBoard of Revenue and others                        Plaintiff-Respondents\n\n\n                             **************\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J<\/p>\n
        I have heard Sri Arun Kumar holding brief of Sri R.S. Misra<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for<\/p>\n
respondents no. 1 to 5 and Sri K.P.S. Yadav learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent no. 6. I have also perused the pleadings exchanged by the<\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n
        Whether the suit in question under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A.
\n        and L R Act (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’) is barred by
\n        Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short
\n        Consolidation Act) is the short question which arises for
\n        determination in the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        The land in dispute khata no. 90 gata no. 2 area 3-131 and 256<\/p>\n
area 0-304 situate in village Mukhali, Tappa Pawai, Pargana Mahul,<\/p>\n
Tehsil Phoolpur, District Azamgarh was the property of one Shiv<\/p>\n
Nandan who died on 12.1.1973 leaving behind two sons Bansu<\/p>\n
(petitioner) and Hari Lal who also expired on 8.7.1974 leaving his<\/p>\n
widow Smt. Beli (respondent no. 6). Smt. Beli instituted suit no. 54 of<\/p>\n
1979 under Section 229-B of the Act for declaring her that she is also the<\/p>\n
co-owner of the aforesaid land alongwith petitioner Bansu and is in joint<\/p>\n
possession thereof. Her allegation was that after the death of Shiv<\/p>\n
Nandan the land devolved equally upon his two sons and on the death of
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
one of them Hari Lal his share exclusively devolved upon her but<\/p>\n
petitioner Bansu illegally got his name recorded against the entire land<\/p>\n
of which she acquired knowledge on 12.3.1979 and therefore the suit.<\/p>\n
The suit was opposed by petitioner Bansu on the ground inter alia that<\/p>\n
suit is barred by section 49 of the Act. He contended that during the<\/p>\n
consolidation operations in proceedings registered as Case No. 804<\/p>\n
under Section 12 of the said Act an order was passed on 2.2.1976 in his<\/p>\n
favour and the land was exclusively recorded in his name on 12.9.1977.<\/p>\n
Respondent no. 6 had not raised any objection before the consolidation<\/p>\n
authorities, therefore she is not entitle to maintain the present suit.<\/p>\n
      The suit was decreed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 31.8.1982<\/p>\n
after holding it to be maintainable and not barred by Section 49 of the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Act. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner on 27.5.1996 and the Second Appeal by the Board of<\/p>\n
Revenue vide order dated 13.1.2009. Thus all the said 3 orders of the<\/p>\n
Courts below have been assailed by him in the present writ petition.<\/p>\n
      Section 49 of the Consolidation Act clearly provides that all suits<\/p>\n
relating to:\n<\/p>\n
           (i)     declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in<\/p>\n
                   respect of the land under consolidation; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (ii)    adjudication of any right arising out of consolidation<\/p>\n
                   proceedings and in regard to which proceedings which<\/p>\n
                   could or ought to have been taken under the Act; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (iii)   in respect to rights in such land or with respect to<\/p>\n
                   matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
                 been taken under the Act;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
shall be cognizable by the consolidation authorities and the jurisdiction<\/p>\n
of civil or revenue court stands expressly barred.<\/p>\n
      In Gorakhnath Dubey Vs. Hari Narain Singh AIR 1973 SC 2451<\/p>\n
their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the object of Section<\/p>\n
49 of the Consolidation Act is to remove from the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
civil or revenue courts all disputes which could be decided by the<\/p>\n
competent    authority   under   the       Consolidation   Act   during   the<\/p>\n
consolidation operation. This is to place all disputes relating to land<\/p>\n
covered by the consolidation operation before one particular forum ie.,<\/p>\n
the consolidation authorities so as to avoid conflicting decisions of<\/p>\n
parallel courts and consequently to save clash of interest between two<\/p>\n
courts.\n<\/p>\n
      There is no dispute between the parties that the land in dispute was<\/p>\n
under the consolidation operation where petitioner had raised a dispute<\/p>\n
claiming exclusive rights in the disputed land which was registered as<\/p>\n
case no. 304. The claim was allowed by the Assistant Consolidation<\/p>\n
Officer vide order dated 2.2.1976 and it was given effect to by carrying<\/p>\n
out ‘amal daramad’ on 12.9.1977. Accordingly, annual register of record<\/p>\n
of rights was revised. Therefore, even if, respondent no. 6 was not<\/p>\n
arrayed as a party. Respondent no. 6 would be presumed to be having<\/p>\n
knowledge of the same and that she was entitle to raise claim in respect<\/p>\n
of her rights or interest in the land before the consolidation authorities,<\/p>\n
as she herself moved an application under Section 12 of the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Act which came to be registered as case no. 314, even
\n                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
though she was not arrayed as party in case no. 304. However, for the<\/p>\n
reasons best known to respondent no. 6 she failed to pursue the same and<\/p>\n
allowed the said case to be dismissed on 6.3.1981 probably for the<\/p>\n
reason that in the meantime she had instituted the suit for declaration.<\/p>\n
      The very fact that she preferred objections under Section 12 of the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Act in respect to her rights and interest in the land in<\/p>\n
dispute which were rejected on 6.3.1981 by the Assistant Consolidation<\/p>\n
Officer, indicates that the consolidation operations were continuing till<\/p>\n
1981. The suit was instituted in 1979 ie., during the consolidation<\/p>\n
operations. Therefore, respondent no. 6 ought to have initiate             and<\/p>\n
perused appropriate proceedings for the establishment of her rights in the<\/p>\n
land in dispute before the consolidation authorities alone and not before<\/p>\n
any other court either civil or revenue. This is implicit from the plain and<\/p>\n
unambiguous language used in Section 49 of the Consolidation Act<\/p>\n
which provides that adjudication in respect of rights in land or in respect<\/p>\n
of other matters for which proceedings could or ought to have been<\/p>\n
taken under the act shall be done in accordance with the Act and no civil<\/p>\n
or revenue court shall have any right to entertain any suit or proceeding<\/p>\n
in respect of such matters. Certainly, respondent no. 6 as such had the<\/p>\n
remedy of getting her rights in respect of land in dispute adjudicated by<\/p>\n
the consolidation authorities either by applying for the recall of the order<\/p>\n
dated 2.2.1976 passed in favour of the petitioner or to prefer an appeal<\/p>\n
against the same or any other separate objections but instead of doing<\/p>\n
any such thing she chose to institute the present suit. The jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
the revenue court for entertaining such a suit during the consolidation
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
operation stood expressly barred.\n<\/p>\n
      Sri Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.6 attempted to<\/p>\n
suggest that the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 2.2.1976<\/p>\n
was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud as respondent no. 6 was<\/p>\n
not made party in the said proceedings deliberately and the rejection of<\/p>\n
the objections under Section 12 of the Consolidation Act of the<\/p>\n
respondent no. 6 for want of prosecution would not debar her from<\/p>\n
establishing her rights under Section 229-B of the Act.<\/p>\n
      The submission has been noted only to be rejected. Respondent<\/p>\n
no. 6 may not have been a party to the mutation proceedings initiated by<\/p>\n
the petitioner but she was fully aware and concious of the fact that she<\/p>\n
had a remedy under the Consolidation Act to get the record of rights<\/p>\n
corrected. She even moved an application under Section 12 of the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Act but failed to pursue the said same which in fact was<\/p>\n
the proper and the right remedy availed by her. Instead she chose to<\/p>\n
institute the suit which was expressly barred by Section 49 of the Act.<\/p>\n
      Reliance placed upon 1980 ALJ 902 SC Karbalai Begum Vs.<\/p>\n
Mohd. Sayeed and another from the side of respondent no. 6 is of no<\/p>\n
help to her.\n<\/p>\n
      In the aforesaid case, a suit for joint possession was brought by the<\/p>\n
co-sharer on the ground of fraud in getting her name deleted from the<\/p>\n
records in consolidation proceedings. Therefore, their Lordships of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court held that the suit is not barred by Section 49 of the<\/p>\n
Consolidation Act. The situation here is different. I have perused the<\/p>\n
entire plaint of the suit. The suit for declaration under Section 229 of the
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
Act and joint possession has been instituted simply on the averment of<\/p>\n
wrong revenue entry during consolidation without any specific pleading<\/p>\n
with regard to fraud on part of any one. It is accordingly not applicable<\/p>\n
to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
       On the contrary, the apex Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs.<\/p>\n
Chhata Bhondey and others 1990 RD 439 held that the claim of interest<\/p>\n
in the land under consideration falls within the ambit of Section 5(2) of<\/p>\n
the Consolidation Act and has to be adjudicated by the consolidation<\/p>\n
authorities only ousting the jurisdiction of other Courts expressly by<\/p>\n
Section 49 of the Consolidation Act.\n<\/p>\n
       In view of the above, in my considered opinion the suit as<\/p>\n
instituted by respondent no. 6 was not maintainable and was clearly<\/p>\n
barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. The courts below<\/p>\n
manifestly erred in law in holding otherwise basically for the reason that<\/p>\n
respondent no. 6 was not a party to case no. 304 and her on case no. 314<\/p>\n
was not decided on merits both of which were not material for deciding<\/p>\n
the controversy. The impugned orders dated 31.8.1992, 27.5.2006 and<\/p>\n
13.1.2009 passed by the authorities below are quashed and a writ in the<\/p>\n
nature of certiorari is directed to be issued accordingly.<\/p>\n
       Petition stands allowed.\n<\/p>\n
       No orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Dt. 2.4.2010
\nSKS\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010 [Reserved] Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23713 of 2009 Bansu Petitioner Vs. Board of Revenue and others Plaintiff-Respondents ************** Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J I have heard Sri Arun Kumar holding brief of Sri R.S. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner, learned […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBanshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-24T17:41:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-24T17:41:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1522,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-24T17:41:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-24T17:41:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-24T17:41:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010"},"wordCount":1522,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010","name":"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-24T17:41:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/banshu-vs-board-of-revenue-others-on-2-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Banshu vs Board Of Revenue & Others on 2 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=207149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}