LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

v s dhulap (member)     19 June 2013

About 32(o) of alt

learned friends,In a case of 70(b) of BTA 1948, a tehsildar passed an order against two brothers (placing actual charge on the first brother) and granted tenenacy exparte.(The land bought in 1965 belonged to their father and devolved on the survivors intestate) the first brother (respondents)  died even before the proceedings could be started u/s 70(b). Due to ignorance of the appelants (fraudulently claiming tenancy)  the order has come against a dead person 8 months after his death ,The deceased's heirs and sisters also got the names entered in the record of rights during the pendency of the case yet no substitution was preferred by appellants.Respondents appealled in state rev. tribunal against the order meanwhile the tehsildar has passed 32(O) and 32(G) behind back and it was seen that the order under sec 32(O) is issued  to the survivors and the sisters for confirming the sale of the land.they were not a party to the case u/s 70(b).Tehsildar was shown and proved about this grave lapse. He has kept it for order.What order can be possibly made by him? Can tehsildar revise the order su-moto(the appellants have not asked for review)-.Case u/s 70(b) is pending in tribunal.Please comment on probabilities.


 1 Replies

Paras Awasthi (Businessman)     25 June 2013


Get a detailed reply to your Query from


Visit and you post an online query on the website, you will get a detailed reply on your query from practising porperty lawyers. The answers would include information on the law, and possible paths that you may follow in your case. 



Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Recent Topics

View More

Related Threads