Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAM SUNDER versus GULAB AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shyam Sunder v. Gulab And Others - CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 2422 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 10976 (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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are present in person.

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri M. S. Pepersenia,  learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 and Sri Devendra Saini for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order passed by the Court dated 28.11.2000 staying the operation of the order dated 01.11.2000, by which, the lease deed executed in favour of Sri Shyam Sunder up to 20.04.2004 has been cancelled.  In this view, the lease-deed executed  in favour of Sri Shyam Sunder up to 20.4.2004 was revived and despite the aforesaid order, the lease-deed was executed in favour of opp. Party no. 1 Sri Gulab.  It is also alleged that the Board of Revenue has subsequently allowed the revision vide order dated 16.11.2002 and up held the lease right of Sri Shyam Sunder up to 20.4.2004, therefore, the respondent no. 3 in its order dated 30.7.2002 while canceling the lease-deed executed in favour of Sri Gulab has illegally allowed him to fish out the fishes up to 15.09.2002.  

Sri M. S. Pepersenia, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the respondent no. 3 vide order dated 01.8.2002 on the review application has restrained all the parties to fish out the fishes, therefore, so for as the respondent no. 3 is concerned, he had not allowed Sri Gulab to fish out the fishes from the Ponds.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently, another S. D. M. had allowed the respondent no. 1 to fish out the fishes from the Ponds vide order dated 19.9.1992.  The certified copy of the order has been produced before this Court.  In this view of the matter, it appears that so for as the respondent no. 3 is concerned, he had not allowed Sri Gulab to  fish out the fishes from the Ponds.

On the aforesaid facts, petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks time to file Certified copy of the order dated 19.9.2002 and also to file an affidavit stating therein that whether in pursuance of the said order, any fish have been taken out by Sri Gulab.  Petitioner may also implead Sri Ravindra, S. D. M., Sadar who had passed the order dated  19.9.2002.

List after three weeks.  

The respondent no. 3 is exempted from personal appearance.  The personal appearance of respondent nos. 1 and 2 are also exempted until further orders of this Court.

Meanwhile, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 may also file their reply

Dt:02.07.2007.

MZ/2422/02.


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.