Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RADHA CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Radha Chaudhary And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 6533 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3718 (16 February 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

We have heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.P.S. Niranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

According to the petitioners the lease deed for excavation of minor minerals (sand) was executed on 18.11.2005 and MM 11 form was issued on 21.11.2005 and 22.11.2005. A complaint was made by one Bali Ram Singh alias Balli Yadav on 17.11.2005 in which it was alleged that the petitioners are not doing any excavation of minor minerals but on the other hand one Azad Ali a benami is doing the mining work. The Naib Tahsildar on the basis of the complaint dated 17.11.2005 submitted his report on 30.11.2005 which report was forwarded by the S.D.M. and on that basis after giving opportunity of hearing the District Magistrate has cancelled the lease in favour of the petitioners. The submission is that on the date when the complaint was made the lease deed was not in existence and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were excavating minor minerals even prior to the execution of the lease deed.

We find that the Naib Tahsildar has not given any detail that on which date he has made inspection. Thus, according to the aforesaid facts the conclusion is that no action could have been taken on the basis of the complaint when admittedly the lease deed was not in existence. We therefore, set aside the order dated 23.1.2006 canceling the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. However, this order will not affect the right of the Tahsildar to make any inquiry against the petitioners in getting the work done or operating the lease deed.

The writ petition is allowed.

D/-16.2.2006

Mahmood-6533-06


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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