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


Raj Kumar Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 2109 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 903 (13 January 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. No.  2109 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Yadav for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Beg Raj Singh Versus State of U.P. and others, 2003 (1) S.C.C. 726, for the proposition that where the contractor could not operate his lease for the entire duration of the lease period, the lease can be extended if third party rights have not been created.

The petitioner claims that he could not realise tehbazari for the entire duration of the contract because on account of the objection by the owners of the plot No. 64/1, the milk vendors could not sell milk on the plot and, consequently, the petitioner could not collect the tehbazari. The petitioner claims that he had informed about this fact by letters dated 15th July 2005, 30th August 2005 and 29th September 2005.

It is not the case of the petitioner that now the owners of plot No. 64/1 have withdrawn their objection or that the milk is being sold again on the said plot, therefore, extension of the contract prayed by the petitioner would not be of any benefit to the petitioner as on the petitioner's own case set-up before this Court, he will not be able to realise any tehbazari in respect of that plot.

However, if the petitioner could not operate his contract for the entire period, the petitioner would be entitled to proportionate rebate on the contract money paid by the petitioner too the Nagar Nigam.

In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition requiring the Nagar Aayukt, Varanasi, to examine the claim of the petitioner and the evidence given by the petitioner in support of his claim about the period during which the petitioner was unable to operate his contract, and after holding such enquiry, as may be considered necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Nagar Aayukt will take a reasoned decision as to whether the petitioner was not able to operate his contract for the entire duration and, if not, the period during which the contract could not be operated and the reasons for the same and will accordingly direct the refund of the proportionate amount or refuse to direct refund. In either case, the order will be supported by reasons and the decision will be taken within two months of the date on which certified copy of this order is presented before the Nagar Aayukt.

Dated : January 13, 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.