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


Vashishtha v. The Commissioner Azamgarh - WRIT - C No. 22661 of 1995 [2007] RD-AH 13877 (10 August 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).


Hon. Dilip Gupta, J,

This petition seeks the quashing of the orders dated 15.1.1994 and 22.11.1994 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Mau as also the order dated 28.4.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh.

The records of the writ petition indicate that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,  1950. The Additional Collector dismissed the Revision on 15.1.1994 in default. A restoration application was filed in which an order was passed on 22.11.1994 holding that the petitioner had illegally occupied the Khalihan land and,  therefore,  dispossession was justified. The application was, accordingly, rejected. A Revision was again filed before the Commissioner, Azamgarh which was dismissed as not maintainable.

Learned counsel fort he petitioner submitted that the order dated 22.11.1994 is non speaking order and the petitioner has not been heard on merits. It is also not clear whether the restoration application was allowed and then the matter was heard on merits. In my opinion, the order dated 22.11.1994 deserves to be set aside because if a restoration application was filed for recalling the order dated 15.1.1994, then the Commissioner was bound to pass an order on the restoration application. It is only in the event the restoration was allowed, the matter was required to be heard but that was not having been done in the present case.

In this view of the matter, the order dated 22.11.1994 is set aside and the Additional Collector shall pass an appropriate order. The matter is remitted to the Additional Collector to pass an appropriate order on the restoration application and if it is allowed, then the Additional Collector shall pass the order in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Interim order, if any,  stands vacated.




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.