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


Bijendra v. Addl. Collector (Administration) Ghaziabad & Others - WRIT - C No. 19448 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7510 (10 April 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. 19448 of 2006

Bijendra.                          Vs.        Additional Collector (Administration),

                                                      Ghaziabad and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

        Heard Sri  Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.N. Verma holding brief of Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the parties agree that this petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.

         Proceedings under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were instituted against the petitioner in respect of Gaon Sabha Plot No.948. The plot is recorded as Johar, which means pond. The petitioner filed objection to the notice in Form 49-ka and his case is that he is not in possession of plot no. 948 but is in possession over plot no. 977 for a period of 50-60 years. The petitioner also claims benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) in the petition but benefit of this provision can not be given over public utility land. Learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that the petitioner is claiming benefit not in respect of plot no. 948 but in respect of plot no. 977. The finding recorded on the statement of the lekhpal and the report of the Revenue Inspector is that the petitioner has taken possession over the Gaon Sabha Plot no.948.  The finding is based upon sufficient material. The finding is one of fact and is not shown to be vitiated by any error of law.

            Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the damages are excessive. The order indicates that the damages are Rs. 4,000/- and have been worked out at the rate of Rs.100 per square yard. It has not been stated on what basis the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard has been adopted. However, the remand of the case for determination of damages afresh in accordance with the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules would prolong the proceedings and the controversy being small it would not be proper to remand it on that point. The petitioner is in possession over the pond 0.004 hectares since 1410 F. In the facts and circumstances damages of Rs. 2,000/- would be appropriate. Accordingly the order-dated 30.11.2004 of the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Hapur, Ghaziabad and order of the Additional Collector (Administration), Ghaziabad dated 23.6.2005 are set aside in respect of damages alone. The damages are reduced to Rs. 2,000/-. In all other respects the orders are maintained.




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.