Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDUL RASHID versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO.1 DISTRICT PILIBHIT & ORS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Abdul Rashid v. Additional District Judge Court No.1 District Pilibhit & Ors - WRIT - C No. 11944 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4654 (28 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 UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petition challenges the orders dated 17.1.2005 and 15.9.2005 of the trial court as well as the appellate court passed for the disposal of two preliminary issues framed for challenging the jurisdiction of the court and bar of the suit under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The courts below have decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff holding that the court does possess jurisdiction to entertain a suit for permanent injunction in regard to a passage which is claimed by the plaintiffs as to facilitate the access to their house.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit property though may be stated to be a passage, but in regard to the same the revenue court has already decided a proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in between the plaintiffs/respondents and Gaon Sabha. The order of eviction by the Collector has already been passed against the plaintiffs.

While replying to the aforesaid objection to the maintainability of the suit, the court below has found that the property, which had been identified in para 1 of the plaint, is a property shown to be situated in village Nisra whereas the property about which the litigation under Section 122-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, was done, is the property situated in village Barat Bhoj.  Therefore, the property of both the cases being different from each other, the question of maintainability of the suit and its bar under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be implied and on that basis the issues have been decided in the negative. These orders appear to be wholly sound and no interference in the writ petition is required. The writ court is not supposed to go into the complicated question of fact and, thus, will not be required to find as to in which village the land in suit is located. Obviously this job is of the trial court and it shall be done at appropriate time.

The petition does not have any force and is hereby dismissed.

28.2.2006

SUA/11944-06


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.