Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUNDRIKA versus ADDL. COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mundrika v. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial-Ii), Varansi Division & Others - WRIT - C No. 15123 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6771 (28 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

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

Sehtu, Parma and Shivnath respondents filed an application to cancel the patta of Sita and others. In this case the petitioner filed an application for restraining persons illegally carrying on fishing operations. Sehtu and others complainants, it was found did not lead any evidence to prove that the pattas were granted illegally or that there was no publicity before the allotment was made. The application for cancellation of pattas was rejected. The petitioner filed a revision, which has been dismissed.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar holding brief of Sri S.K.S. Kushwaha counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 6.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as contesting respondents were allotted land for agricultural purpose but the same could not have been done inasmuch as the nature of the property is a pond. The petitioner's objection was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate, Ghazipur and revision against that order was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi on the ground that the petitioner did not make any

application for cancellation of the patta and his prayer was only to restrain illegal fishing operations. No ground for interference with orders passed by the authorities below has been made out.  It is open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.  It is made clear that no opinion upon merits of such application is being made by this court.

The petition is dismissed.

Dt. 28.3.2006

Sn/wp-15123/06


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.