Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

J. SINGH AND OTHERS versus IV A.D.J. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


J. Singh And Others v. Iv A.D.J. And Others - WRIT - C No. 2179 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 10920 (2 July 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Judgment reserved on 02.04.2007)

(Judgment delivered on 02.07.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2179 of 1986

Jagjeet Singh and others Vs. IVth Additional District Judge and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition arises out of proceedings under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Initially Prescribed Authority through his judgment dated 22.03.1977 held that original petitioner No.1-Jagjeet Singh possessed 30.68 acres of land as surplus land. Appeal was filed and matter was remanded. Thereafter, Prescribed Authority through order dated 31.08.1978 held that surplus land of Jagjeet Singh was 4.3 acres. Again an appeal was filed and matter was remanded. The said order was maintained in the writ petition. Thereafter Prescribed Authority on 03.09.1982 held that Jagjeet Singh possessed about 6 bighas 14 biswas land as surplus land. The said judgment was again set aside in appeal on 09.10.1983 and matter was remanded. Thereafter, Prescribed Authority through order dated 30.03.1984 declared that Jagjeet Singh possessed 1.79 acres of land in terms of the irrigated land as surplus. The said order was passed in case No.10 of 1976 by Prescribed Authority/S.D.O., Khaga, District Fatehpur. Against the said order, petitioners again filed Ceiling Appeal No.18 of 1984. Before the Appellate Court, it was argued that area of Khata No.11 is 3 bighas 2 biswas 10 biswancies and the Prescribed Authority has wrongly held that the area of the said Khata was 25 bighas 5 biswas. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 16.10.1985, however it granted liberty to the petitioners, who were appellants to file correction application before Prescribed Authority, if there was any error of calculation. Petitioners instead of availing that opportunity filed this writ petition against the said judgment of Appellate Court. Order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.03.1984 has also been challenged through this writ petition.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Appellate Court instead of remanding the matter should have itself corrected the error.

As the matter is quite old, hence I directed petitioner to file necessary papers in order to point out the error. The said order was passed on 07.03.2007 and was followed by order dated 22.03.2007. Thereafter, supplementary affidavit was filed on 29.03.2007 annexing therewith C.L.H. Form No.3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the said form, it area of Khata No.29 was shown as 3 bighas 2 biswas 10 biswancies. Even though before the Appellate Court, the dispute was raised regarding area of Khata No.11, however, in Para-7 of the writ petition it has been mentioned that the error is in the area of Khata No.29. In the copy of the C.L.H. Form No.3 filed along with supplementary affidavit, the area of Khata No.29 is given as about 25 bighas and not three bighas. It is evident from Page No.7 of the supplementary affidavit. (Photocopy of C.L.H. Form No.3 annexed along with supplementary affidavit is not easily legible.

As learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the area of Khata No.11 or 29, hence writ petition is dismissed. It is further directed that no correction application shall be entertained by the Prescribed Authority and the possession of the land declared as surplus through order dated 30.03.1984 by the Prescribed Authority shall at once be taken by the State after completing the necessary formalities.

Date:02.07.2007

NLY


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.