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


G.D.A.,Ghaziabad v. Man Singh & Others - WRIT - B No. 21454 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 5525 (8 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).



                                                                                       Court No.5.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21454 of 1997

Ghaziabad Development Authority  Vs.  Man Singh and others.

and others.                                        

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

              A suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 against the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The first appeal was also dismissed. A second appeal was filed by the respondents 1 to 4. It appears that during the pendency of the second appeal a notification was issued by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut resuming the land from the Gaon Sabha in exercise of power under Section 117 (6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and vesting it in the Ghaziabad Development Authority. It appears however that this subsequent fact about resumption could not be brought on the record in the second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the second appeal was allowed without impleading the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The judgement and decree of both the courts below were set aside by the Board of Revenue and the case was remanded for fresh decision to the trial court. The respondents 1 to 4 then filed an application for review in which it was prayed that the suit has neither been decreed nor dismissed in the second appeal and that the operative part of the order of the order of the Board of Revenue should be read to the effect that the appeal be allowed and the suit decreed. The Board of Revenue by a very strange order dated 16.6.1992 allowed the review application in the following terms:

               "This is a review application against the judgment dated 26.2.1992.

                 2.   Heard the learned counsel and learned D.G.C. It is contended that the second appeal was allowed and the order for decreeing the suit has not been passed.

                3.  The suit is either decreed or dismissed. Earlier suit was dismissed by the courts below and the second appeal was allowed and those judgments were set aside.

                     In this sense the application is allowed. The review application is disposed of accordingly."

               The effect of this order is that the suit of respondents 1 to 4 stood decreed. Such an order could not at all have been passed by the Board of Revenue because it amounts entirely to the modification of the decree itself for which neither new grounds had been made out nor any reasons have been given by the Board of Revenue.

                 The present petition has been filed by the Ghaziabad Development Authority challenging both the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 26.2.1992 and 16.6.1992. The ground is that after notification of resumption the land had ceased to vest with the Gaon Sabha Makanpur and had vested in the Ghaziabad Development Authority, which, therefore was a necessary party in the second appeal. Learned counsel for the Ghaziabad Development Authority has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench in 2002 (1) A.W.C. 521 Likhi Ram alias Moola and another Vs. State of U.P. and others in which although between different parties the notification for resumption, which is involved in the present writ petition has been up held. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon another judgement of this Court in which in similar circumstances  the order of the Board of Revenue in the second appeal was quashed on the ground that the Ghaziabad Development Authority had not been impleaded as a party in the appeal. Copy of that order-dated 4.10.1993 in Writ Petition No. 9314 of 1991 Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Board of Revenue and others has been annexed with the writ petition. The Ghaziabad Development Authority was therefore a necessary party.

                 Before disposing of the petition it is necessary to refer to another aspect. An application for impleadment has been filed in this writ petition by Moti Lal Goyal who is represented by Sri Rajiv Mishra. It is stated by Sri Rajiv Mishra that he does not intend to press the application In the writ petition but will make an application before the Board of Revenue. If such an application is made the Board of Revenue shall consider the same and pass appropriate order. It is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion upon the rights of the applicant seeking impleadment and it will be for the Board of Revenue to consider the same. The impleadment application of Moti Lal Goyal in this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

                        In view of the aforesaid discussion this writ petition is also liable to be allowed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue dated 26.2.1992 and 16.6.1992 are quashed. The Board of Revenue shall decide the second appeal afresh. It will be open to the petitioner, which is a necessary party to apply for impleadment in the second appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Ghaziabad Development Authority will file such an application for impleadment within a period of six weeks from today. It is open to the plaintiff too to file the application for impleadment. The Board of Revenue shall try to dispose of the second appeal if possible within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.




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.