Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.D.A., KANPUR versus B.R., ALLD. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.D.A., Kanpur v. B.R., Alld. And Others - WRIT - B No. 21077 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 4318 (23 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 Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Rai holding brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.4

         A suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by the respondent no. 4  Munni Lal against the petitioner. His case is that he is in possession of the property and his name was so recorded in the Khasra and Khatauni of 1356 F and 1359 F and he is also a scheduled caste and is entitled to the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The suit was decreed by the trial court. Appeal against the decree preferred by the respondent no.4 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. A Second appeal was preferred by the respondent no.4 before the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed. It is submitted by Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner that substantial questions of law were not framed by the Board of Revenue in the second appeal and the same could not have been allowed. Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act makes applicable the provisions of the Civil  Procedure Code also to the second appeals in the Board of Revenue. The substantial questions of law have, therefore, also to be framed by the Board of Revenue, which was not done. The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 30.1.2001 is set aside. The Board of Revenue shall now decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after hearing the counsel for the parties concerned and shall try to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and if possible within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.

23.2.2006.

s.wp.21077/2001.

         


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.