Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PHEKU versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pheku v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 17618 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6951 (30 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. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 24.9.1986 and 23.10.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Varanasi and for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the disputed land.

Proceedings under Section 8(3) of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') were taken in respect of the land in dispute and an order dated 24.9.1986 was passed by the Prescribed Authority declaring 5019.09 Square Meter of land as surplus land. Subsequently notifications under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act were also issued.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that actual physical possession of the land was not taken and, therefore, in terms of Section 4 of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) (Repeal) Act, 1999 the proceedings abate.

A perusal of the order dated 23.10.2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority clearly shows that pursuant to the proceedings taken under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the Act, the possession was taken over and handed over to the Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi.

In view of the specific finding recorded in the aforesaid order, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that actual physical possession was not taken by the State.

The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/-30.3.2006

Sharma/17618


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.