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


Amar Nath And Others v. Board Of Revenue, U.P. At Alld. And Others - WRIT - B No. 6984 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 8932 (4 May 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).



Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Both these writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 17.8.2000 passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad in reference nos. 74 and 75 of 1995-96.  The main grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that notices were not served upon them who were the opposite parties in the reference.  Today a Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of contesting respondents.  There is only a bald assertion in the order sheet of 23.12.1997 as quoted in para-4 of the supplementary counter affidavit to the effect that notices on opposite parties except opposite party no.2 served.    In respect of opposite party no.2 it is mentioned that notices  not received back after service.  There is no mention in the supplementary counter affidavit that notice on opposite party no.2 was ever served. There is no indication that notice was served upon other opposite parties in what manner.

It may also be mentioned that before filing of the writ petitions restoration application was filed before Board of Revenue and thereafter an application for withdrawing the restoration application had also been filed.  Thereafter writ petition was filed and then restoration application was dismissed as withdrawn.

In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the best course is to direct Board of Revenue to decide both the references after hearing all the parties concerned.  However, I also feel that in order to do complete justice it is essential that petitioners must be put to terms.  (Petitioners did not disclosed in the writ petitions that restoration application had been filed by them before Board of Revenue).

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed.  Both the impugned orders dated 17.8.2000 are set aside and both the references are restored on payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost by both the petitioners (Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner of first writ petition and Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner of second writ petition).  Cost shall be paid on the next date before the Board of Revenue.  Both the parties are directed to appear before Board of Revenue on 10.7.2006. On the said date the cost shall be paid and either the references must be heard on the same date or a short date shall be granted for the said purpose.  Board of Revenue is directed to make all efforts to decide the references within two months from 10.7.2006.  However, if costs are not paid by 10.7.2006, this order shall stand automatically vacated and both the writ petitions shall stand dismissed.  




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.