Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM NIWAS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Niwas v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 10461 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4232 (22 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'ble Janardan Sahai, J

Heard Shri S.K.Tyagi, counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Singh counsel for respondent no.4 the Land Management Committee and standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

Proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act were initiated against the petitioner in respect of plot no. 511. According to the Land Management Committee, the land in dispute is a manure pit and the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. The petitioner's case is that the disputed land is abadi and the constructions of the petitioner are standing thereupon since before Zamindari Abolition. The Assistant collector by order dated 17.1.2005 dropped the proceedings with the finding that the abadi of the petitioner was old. A revision was filed by the State - the. Land management Committee which has been allowed by order dated 8.12.2005 and the case has been remanded for afresh decision by the Assistant Collector. The ground for the remand stated in the order, is that the finding in the order of the Assistant Collector that it was an old abadi was not based on material and that the authority should have made spot inspection and also to have considered whether constructions were old or not. Good grounds have been given in the order of remand. That apart the petitioner is not really prejudiced. He will get opportunity to put forth his version before the Assistant Collector.

For these reasons, the order passed by the revisional court does not call for interference. Dismissed.

Dt. 22.2.2006

Sn/wp-10461/06


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.