Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAY KUMAR VERMA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajay Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 5517 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 11557 (10 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. 10

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 10284 OF 1999.

Smt. Kanak Sharma                                                           .....Petitioner.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Versus          

State of Uttar Pradesh and others                          ...........Respondents.

With

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 28184 OF 1999.

Mohan Lal Sharma                                                              ...Petitioners.

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and others                                 ....Respondents.

With

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 5517 OF 1999.

Ajay Kumar Verma                                                             .....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and others                              .......Respondents.

........................

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.

Since these three writ petitions raise common questions of fact and law, therefore, are being decided by a common judgement.

Petitioners of these three writ petitions claim that they are the tenant of the Nagar Nigam who is the Manger of the Nazul land belonging to the State Government and they pursuant to an offer applied for conversion of the Nazul rights into free hold rights  with regard to their accommodation as per the Government Order dated 23rd May, 1992 vide application dated 31st July, 1996. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

The Government Order under which the policy to convert the Nazul land into free hold land has been modified by the subsequent Government Order dated 1st December, 1998. The petitioner has challenged by means of this writ petition para 5 (i) of the Government Order dated 1st December, 1998. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner applied for conversion of nazul rights into freehold rights under the Government Order 23rd May, 1992 we find that the relief no. (a) cannot be granted because he has not demonstrated that either he is offended or affected particularly by para 5 (1) of the Government Order dated 1st December, 1998. so far as the relief no. B is concerned, petitioner has sought for quashing of the application of Nagar Nigam for getting the land in question converted into freehold. The said application has been filed by Nagar Nigam in terms of the Government Order dated 1st December, 1998 to which petitioner possibly cannot oppose the application filed by the Nagar Nigam. So far as the prayer No. C is concerned, he has prayed for conversion of nazul rights into freehold rights pursuant to the Government Order dated 23rd May, 192, we have asked the petitioner that under what provisions the tenant of Nazul land, which is under the management of the local body concerned, he applied for conversion into freehold. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that he has any right particularly in view of the fact which is according to own submission of the petitioner that he has filed application pursuant to the Government Order dated 23rd May, 1992 which has not been decided by the District Magistrate.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as premature.

Dated: 10.7.2007.

HR


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.