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


Panna Lal v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 33949 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13125 (30 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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33949 of 2007

 Panna Lal  


State of U. P.  and  others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Case has been called out. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and perused the record.

The facts as  emerge out from the pleading in the writ petition  are as under :

Suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act filed by respondent no. 5 against respondent no. 6 was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.1994.  Application dated 4.6.2004 to recall the said order said to have been moved by Gaon Sabha through petitioner Panna Lal was dismissed on 6.7.2006. Petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision which was also dismissed by a detail order by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on 13th April, 2007. From the pleadings it further appears that on an objection filed by respondent no. 6 before Consolidation Officer was allowed vide order dated 30.12.1981 his name was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute. It further appears that against the said order a time barred appeal was preferred by Gaon Sabha which is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioner has approached this Court not only challenging the order passed in proceedings under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act but also to permit him to prosecute the appeal on the basis of some resolution passed by Gaon Sabha. The facts as mentioned in the writ petition are  confusing and no clear factual position emerges from the same. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has any interest nor there appears to be any reason for the Land Management Committee to pass resolution permitting the petitioner to do pairavi on behalf of Gaon Sabha when there are panel lawyers available for the purpose.

In view of the aforesaid discussions,  there is no scope for interference in the matter at the behest of the petitioner. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Date : July 30, 2007



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.