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


Dev Sharma & Others v. Devendra Singh Raipa, Consolidation Officer, Sadar & Others - WRIT - B No. 13575 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5229 (6 March 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).


Hon. S.N. Srivastava, J.

Connect with Writ Petition No.15760 of 2003, Dev Sharma and another v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad and others.

Supplementary affidavit be taken on record.

Learned counsel for petitioners urged that the proceeding under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was initiated by the District authorities as back as in the year 1995. Petitioners challenged said proceeding in Writ Petition No. 3751 of 1995.  This Court allowed writ petition and order passed by Sub Divisonal Officer, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, dated 2.1.1995 in Case Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, under Sections 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, was quashed and the Collector, Bulandshahr was directed to correct the papers by restoring names of petitioners in their respective cases within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioners further urged that thereafter the State initiated proceedings for cancellation of allotment and orders passed in these proceedings are impugned in Writ Petition no. 15760 of 2003, Dev Sharma and another v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad and others.  In that writ petition, this Court granted an interim order on 17.4.2003 and stayed operation of the orders dated 10.3.2003 and 26.3.2003 till next date of listing, which was extended from time to time and is still continuing.   Learned counsel further urged that during pendency of the said writ petition, the proceedings were again initiated and orders were passed on 24.2.2006 (Annexure S.A.-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit) without giving opportunity to adduce evidence and of hearing to the petitioners and Opp. parties are going to auction the land in dispute on 9.3.2006.  It was also urged that the impugned orders, in view of the facts stated above, suffer from error of law apparent on the face of record and no such order could be passed by the Consolidation Officer.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.  Two weeks' time thereafter is granted to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter.

Till further orders of the Court, operation of the impugned order dated 24.2.2006 (Annexure S.A.-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar and order dated 2.3.2006 (Annexure S.A.-6 to the Supplementary Affidavit), passed by Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, Gautam Buddh Nagar fixing 9.3.2006 for auction shall remain stayed. Petitioners are also restrained from transferring the land in dispute to any person in the meantime.

Certified copy of this order may be issued to the parties within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.




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.