Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Shankar v. Commissioner - WRIT - C No. 21120 of 1989 [2007] RD-AH 12379 (19 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).


(Court No.23)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21120 of 1989

Ram Shanker Vs. Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur and  others.


Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On 21.11.1988, Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur decided appeal No. 1 of 1988 Ram Shanker Vs. State. In the said appeal first point which was decided was that Smt Durga Devi should be treated to be judicially separated wife of Ram Shanker. The other thing which was held in the said judgement was that the land of the petitioner Ram Shanker was situate in cis-Jamuna portion of Kanpur within 16 K.Ms from deep stream of Jamuna, hence, by virtue of section 4(ii)(c)  one and one- half hectares of single crop land and two and a half hectares of any other unirrigated land of petitioner should count as one hectare of irrigated land. State filed review against the said judgment. Commissioner, allowed the review on 29.6.1989, copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition. Said order has been challenged through this writ petition.

In the order passed on review dated 29.6.1989, it was held that as decree for judicial separation was passed in the year 1977 i.e. after 24.1.1971 as well as 8.6.1973, hence, land of wife of petitioner could not be separated form the land of petitioner. Petitioner had contended that agreement for judicial separation had taken place in 1951. In the order dated 19.6.1989, it was rightly held that even if such an agreement had taken place still the date of judicial separation would be the date on which such a decree was passed by the Civil Court.

In my opinion in the earlier order dated 21.11.1988, there was a patent error of law. In the said order the benefit of decree of judicial separation passed in the year 1977 had wrongly been extended to the petitioner. The error was such which could be corrected in the review proceedings, hence, in my opinion review was rightly allowed.

In the end learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after giving benefit of section 4(ii ( c) petitioner may be permitted to give choice of the surplus land. This argument is quite reasonable hence accepted.

Petitioner is directed to appear before the prescribed authority concerned on 10.9.2007 alongwith certified copy of this judgment. On the said date petitioner shall also file an application giving his choice therein for the surplus land to be taken from him.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.