Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE STATE OF U.P. versus BUXISH SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The State Of U.P. v. Buxish Singh - WRIT - C No. 7205 of 1989 [2007] RD-AH 11217 (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

Court No. 28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7205 of 1989

State of U.P.

Vs.

Buxish Singh

*********

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 31st August, 1988 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (J), Bareilly in the appeal that had been filed under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 29th February, 1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

The proceedings under the Act were initiated against Bakshish Singh son of Gulzar Singh resident of village Kon, District Pilibhit on 3rd June, 1976 by issuance of the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act. An area of 2.49 acres of irrigated land was declared as surplus. Subsequently another notice under Section 10(2) of the Act was served upon Bakshish Singh on 29th November, 1978 on the ground that he had certain other land in village Andbho Tehsil, Pawayan, district Shahjahanpur which had not been included in the previous proceedings. Objections were filed by Bakshish Singh that he had no land in the said village Andbho and that against the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority declaring 2.49 acres of land as surplus, the State of U.P. had filed an appeal which was dismissed in which it was also held that Bakshish Singh son of Gulzar Singh resident of village Andbho Tehsil, Pawayan, district Shahjahanpur and Bakshish Singh son of Gulzar Singh resident of village Kon, Tehsil Puranpur, district Pilibhit were two different persons. The Prescribed Authority, however, rejected the application filed by the tenure holder for deciding the preliminary issue. The Appellate Court, however, was of the view that the earlier order of the Prescribed Authority dated 7th August, 1979 declaring surplus land of 2.49 acres had attained finality and would operate as res-judicata. The Appellate Court was also of the view that the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act were not applicable as it applies only when there is any mistake apparent on the face of the record and notices were also not issued within a period of two years. The Appellate Court also noticed that in the earlier judgment dated 29th May, 1980 passed by the Appellate Court a clear finding had been recorded that Bakshish Singh son of Gulzar Singh resident of village Andbho Tehsil, Pawayan, district Shahjahanpur and Bakshish Singh son of Gulzar Singh resident of village Kon, Tehsil Puranpur, district Pilibhit were two different persons. In such circumstances the second notice issued under Section 10(2) of the Act was discharged by the Appellate Court.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 1.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act could be issued in view of the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act. The Appellate Authority had given cogent reason for not accepting this contention and there is no infirmity recorded by the Appellate Authority. The provisions of Section 13-A of the Act could not be availed of by the State for issuing the notice under Section 10(2) of the Act as neither can it be said that there was any mistake apparent on the face of the record and nor was the notice issued within the prescribed period. In such circumstances, the present petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.  

Date: 4.7.2007

NSC


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.