Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHRI DAYA SHANKER VERMA versus DISTRICT JUDGE GHAZIPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shri Daya Shanker Verma v. District Judge Ghazipur And Others - WRIT - A No. 13416 of 1983 [2006] RD-AH 5630 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13416 of 1983

Daya Shanker Verma  Vs.  District Judge, Ghazipur and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

This writ petition arises out of allotment proceedings under Section 16 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.  Property in dispute was declared as vacant by R.C.&E.O. on 9.5.1983 and allotted to respondent no.3 - Dinesh Shanker Tripathi on 13.5.1983.  Against the said order revision was filed being R.C. revision no.62 of 1983.  District Judge, Jaunpur through judgment and order dated 13.10.1983 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.  In pursuance of interim order passed in this writ petition, petitioner is continuing in possession till date.  R.C.&E.O. found that petitioner was in possession.  The petitioner claimed that he had purchased the house in dispute from its previous owner Chaturbhuj Das  through sale deed dated 18.10.1982.  Revisional court held that Chaturbhuj Das was one of the co-sharers.  In view of the fact that petitioner had become co-sharer and was in possession, building in dispute should have been released in his favour.  Through Supplementary affidavit copy of judgment in O.S. No.475 of 1990 passed on 28.5.1990 by Munsif, Ghazipur has been filed. Through the said judgment petitioner has been declared to be owner of the property in dispute.  Through supplementary affidavit dated 11.4.2004 it has been stated that respondent no.3 allottee is not residing in Ghazipur where house in dispute is situate.  The purpose of allotment is to satisfy the immediate need.  Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has not been able to deny the allegation that for a very long time respondent no.3 is not residing in Ghazipur.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.  All the three impugned orders are set aside.  Building in dispute shall stand released in favour of the petitioner.

8.3.2006

RS/-


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.