High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ramoo v. Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 28072 of 2006  RD-AH 9923 (19 May 2006)
Court No. 5
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28072 of 2006
Ramoo ... ...... ......... Petitioner
The Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad
and others ......... ......... Respondents
Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J
Heard Shri V. Singh counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.J. Mishra counsel for respondent no.3.
A suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by the father respondent no.3. It appears that during the pendency of the suit a notification under Section 4 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued on 9.6.2001 but the suit was decreed exparte on 13.2.2003. Against the decree respondent no.3 filed an appeal. The Additional Commissioner found that the decree had been obtained by fraud. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and after setting aside the trial court's order sent back the matter to the trial court for consideration of the question regarding effect of notification under Section 4 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Additional Commissioner also directed the trial court to consider whether the disputed land lies within the municipal limits. The petitioner filed second appeal, which has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The finding of the Additional Commissioner that the exparte decree was obtained by fraud is not vitiated by error of law. The question whether the suit would abate can be decided only after the factual question whether this land lies in municipal limits is decided. The remand was therefore justified. The findings recorded by the courts below court do not suffer from any error, which may call for interference. Dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.