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


Bhau Lal & Others v. Addl. Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda & Others - WRIT - C No. 2775 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1050 (17 January 2007)


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).


Court No. 4

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2775 of 2007

Bhau Lal & others      ....................................................   Petitioner


Additional Commissioner ...........................................Respondents

Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda & others


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Singh appearing for the respondent.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by the Collector, Banda dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Section 198 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for cancelling the lease and the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner dismissing the revision.  The petitioner filed an application under Section 198 (4) for cancelling the leases granted to the respondents. Petitioner's case in the writ petition was that the land is of public utility and there is "Devasthan" which has illegally been allotted.  The Collector  although has rejected the application but has observed that the Sub Divisional Officer may conduct survey of land in dispute and that part of public utility  land which is used for religious purposes may be excluded  and on the rest of the land the lessees be allowed to continue. The revisional court has also noticed the said direction and has dismissed the revision. The revisional court observed that in view of the direction of the Collector no dispute of the public utility land/ religious place remains.   Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the public utility land and the land which is used for religious purposes cannot be allotted.  He submits that the allotments are illegal and his application has wrongly been rejected.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Collector by its order dated 25.11.2003 upto some extent redressed the grievance of the petitioner by directing the Sub Divisional Officer to make survey and exclude the land which is used for religious purposes.   The revisional court has after noticing the said direction has not interfered with the order of the Collector.  The submission of the counsel for the petitioner  that the public utility land cannot be allotted, cannot be accepted.  The  land is Gaon Sabha land which was rightly leased out. No ground has been made out to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the Sub Divisional Officer for carrying out the direction of the Collector as contained in the order dated 25.11.2003.

Subject to above observation, the writ petition is 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.