Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


H.B. Cleophas v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 70208 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21651 (22 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


     Court no. 7                                                        

           Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70208 of 2006

H.B. Cleophas                      versus          State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the house in dispute no.175/78 was allotted to respondent no.3 for residential purpose under the Provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by the Prescribed Authority in 1977.It appears that respondent no.3 filed an application before respondent no.2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Allahabad  for deciding the ownership of the disputed house.

It is stated that Nyab Tehsildar without any enquiry submitted a report dated 10.11.2004 that there is no legal heirs of the disputed property. Subsequently respondent no.2, S.D.M. Sadar, Allahabad vide order dated 18.11.2004 directed that the whole property including the open land vests in the State Government.

Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2004 the petitioner filed  application for recall of the aforesaid order which was allowed vide order dated 16.2.2006 and 3.3.2006 was fixed for further hearing.

 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 16.2.2006 respondent no.3 preferred a revision before the Addl. Commissioner which was allowed vide order dated 6.7.2006 remanding the matter to respondent no.2 for decision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent no.3 which is pending for disposal.

The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that a direction may be issued to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Allahabad, respondent no.2 to decide case no.14 of 2004 within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.

The Standing Counsel for respondent nos.  1 and 2 has on objection to this prayer.

Since the petition is not being decided on merit, the Court does not deem necessary in the circumstances to call upon the respondent no.3 for filing  counter affidavit in view of the nature of order prayed for.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Allahabad to decide the aforesaid case by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  No order as to costs.

Dated 22.12.2006





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.