Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHOLA & OTHERS versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AT ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhola & Others v. Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 29086 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11101 (4 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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29086 of 2007  

Bhola  and others

Versus

Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard  Sri Jai Singh Chandel, holding brief of Sri Amit Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.                    

Proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act  for cancellation of the Patta of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners was initiated by contesting respondents on the ground that said land  was Kabristan of their ancestors. Finding no irregularity in the allotment proceedings, Additional Collector respondent no. 3 dismissed the application. It was further held that title of the land in dispute claimed by the contesting respondents cannot be decided in these proceedings and they may approach the court of competent jurisdiction. The contesting respondents went up in revision. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh allowed the same on the ground that Chief Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under Section 198-A of the Act or to pass any order therein and remanded the case back to be decided by the Collector. Aggrieved, petitioners went up in revision before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed vide order dated 1.3.2007 on the ground that revision was not maintainable against an order of remand.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no. 3 had rightly passed the order rejecting the application filed by contesting respondents for cancellation of the Patta on the ground that the title cannot be decided in these proceedings and the said order has wrongly and illegally been interfered by the revisional court.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by the revisional court on the ground that Chief Revenue Officer had no authority or jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act and hence the matter was remanded back to the Collector to be decided by him afresh in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the said order.

Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.

Date : 4.7. 2007

Dcs.


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.