SAHAB ALAM vs ARUN KUMAR TRIPATHI — 47/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 115. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 03rd April 2026.
Civil Revision
CNR: UPKU010062942025
Filing Number
255/2025
Filing Date
10-Oct-2025
Registration No
47/2025
Registration Date
10-Oct-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
03-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 17-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SAHAB ALAM
Respondent(s)
-
1.ARUN KUMAR TRIPATHI
-
2.ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2026
JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary The District Judge set aside the trial court's order admitting the Amin Commission's map and report regarding disputed agricultural land (Khasra No. 180) because the court-appointed Amin mechanically copied the plaintiff's map without reference to the official Revenue Map No. 41, which establishes correct boundaries. The Judge found material irregularity in accepting the Amin Report as the Amin failed to properly demarcate boundaries of adjacent land parcels and the report lacked signatures of parties. The case was remanded to trial court for fresh proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
03-Apr-2026
Disposed
District and Sessions Judge
-
01-Apr-2026
Order/ Judgement
District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
21-Jan-2026
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Dec-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
03-Dec-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Nov-2025
Hearing
District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 47/2025
Case Summary The District Judge set aside the trial court's order admitting the Amin Commission's map and report regarding disputed agricultural land (Khasra No. 180) because the court-appointed Amin mechanically copied the plaintiff's map without reference to the official Revenue Map No. 41, which establishes correct boundaries. The Judge found material irregularity in accepting the Amin Report as the Amin failed to properly demarcate boundaries of adjacent land parcels and the report lacked signatures of parties. The case was remanded to trial court for fresh proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts