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


Sona Jadi Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 775 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8463 (26 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).


Civil Misc. W.P. (Tax) No. 775 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amar Nath Tewari for the Nagar Nigam and the standing counsel for the State.

The petitioner relies, for quashing of the proceedings under section 213 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959, upon another proceedings which were initiated under section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, which are at present stayed by an order of the Commissioner passed in a revision. The two Acts are different and the two proceedings are before different authorities and neither of the two proceedings can be said to create a bar to the other proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has then argued that the petitioner had applied for mutation of her name in respect of the property in question and her name was mutated in the records of Nagar Nigam and, therefore, Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 3, should have filed an appeal instead of seeking mutation of his name based on the alleged adoption. This argument is also misconceived. When the petitioner got her name mutated, Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 3 was neither given notice nor heard and his claim based on the alleged adoption was not considered, therefore, he has sought the proper remedy.

The petitioner claims that she has submitted her reply to the show cause notice dated 29.12.2005, enclosed as annexure-1 to the petition. In the proceeding under section 213, the questions to be considered would be about the genuineness and effect of the Will upon which the petitioner's claim is based and the genuineness and effect of the alleged adoption upon which the claim of the respondent No. 3 is based. After adjudication, the loosing party will have a right of appeal under the Act. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere at this pre-mature stage of a show cause notice.

The writ petition is dismissed as above.

Dated : April 26, 2006



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.