Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 26824 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9662 (17 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the property in question which has been declared as Nazool property is not such a Nazool land and the order of the authority is wholly illegal, null and void. With this relief certain ancillary reliefs of permanent injunction etc., have also been sought in the plaint. The respondents-defendants objected to the maintainability of the suit and had moved an application before the trial court objecting to the very presentation of the suit before the Civil Court. The court below while deciding the objections has found that the suit was wrongly presented before the Civil Court and has, thus, directed the plaint to be returned for proper presentation. This order of the trial court was under challenge before the revisional court which also has dismissed the petitioner's revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a declaratory suit and such matters are cognizable only by the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner-plaintiff does not have any other remedy. The land in question has been wrongly held to be Nazool property when at no point of time it has been entered as a Nazool land in the records. It is further submitted that the courts below have not been categorical on the point in its findings as to where the remedy in the present context can be sought by the plaintiff and where he should go for the relief claimed in the plaint.

Issue notices to the respondents No. 2 to 6 returnable within six weeks.

List thereafter.

Meanwhile, operation of the impugned orders (Annexures 10 & 11 to the writ petition) shall remain suspended.

17.5.2006

SUA/26824-06


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.