Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAGAR MAHAPALIKA versus BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nagar Mahapalika v. Board of Revenue and others - WRIT - B No. 7327 of 1989 [2006] RD-AH 6054 (20 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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7329  of  1989

Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & others

with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7327  of  1989

Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & others

With

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7328  of  1989

Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & others

With

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7332  of  1989

Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

These four writ petitions connected together raise common question of facts and law and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The facts are that a suit under Section 229-B read with Section 209 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act was filed by the petitioner seeking declaration and ejectment of the contesting respondents. The suit was filed mainly on the ground that territory of Kanpur city was extended and certain land lying with the jurisdiction of Gram Sabha was given under the control and management of the plaintiff-petitioner Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. Accordingly, the village Buddhpur Machhariya where the land in dispute is situate was also brought within the jurisdiction of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and as such, the alleged patta executed by Gram Sabha in favour of the contesting respondents was illegal and without jurisdiction. The defendants-respondents contested the suit on various grounds claiming that they had become ''sirdar' by virtue of valid lease executed by the Gram Sabha on 4.4.1960 and hence were not liable to be ejected from the land in dispute.

In support of the case, the petitioner produced two notifications; one dated 11.2.1959 by which the territory of Kanpur City was extended and other dated 19.3.1964 by which the property vested in different Gram Sabhas was vested in the petitioner Nagar Mahapalika.

The trial court vide judgment dated 15.2.1972 decreed the suit against which the defendants-respondents went up in appeal. The appeals were also dismissed vide judgment dated 10.11.1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. Feeling aggrieved the defendants-respondents went up in second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide impugned judgment dated 25.1.1989 allowed the same and dismissed the suit.

The trial court and the lower appellate court had decreed the suit on the basis of the notification produced by the plaintiff-petitioner dated 11.2.1959 extending territorial limit of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur without considering that property in dispute came to be vested in the petitioner by virtue of notification dated 19.3.1964. The second appellate court found that the two courts below failed to consider the notification dated 19.3.1964 by which the properties vested in Gram Sabha was vested in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur and the lease executed in favour of the defendants-respondents by Gram Sabha on 4.4.1960 was a valid lease as by that time the land in dispute was not vested in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. The Board of Revenue has recorded a categorical finding that Nagar Mahapalika has failed to produce any notification prior to 19.3.1964 by which the land in dispute may have been vested in the Nagar Mahapalika. Even before this court no such notification has been filed or produced. It is thus clear that the land in dispute came to be vested in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur vide notification dated 19.3.1964 and prior to that it was vested in Gram Sabha and thus it cannot be said that the lease deed executed by the Gram Sabha in favour of contesting respondents on 4.4.1960 was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Board of Revenue rightly allowed the second appeal filed by the contesting respondents and dismissed the suit.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment.

The writ petitions accordingly, fail and are dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Dt.20.3.2006


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.