Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAM LAL AND ANOTHER versus BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shyam Lal And Another v. Board Of Revenue And Others - WRIT - B No. 37528 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14004 (14 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37528 of  2007

Shyam Lal and another ............ Petitioners

Versus

Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others ............. Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Respondent nos. 4 to 6 were given benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (for short 'the Act') and declared 'bhumidhar' with non transferable rights vide order dated 22.5.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Petitioners filed an application under Section 198(4) of the Act challenging the order dated 22.5.2003 by which the benefit of Section 122B(4-F) was extended to the respondents. Respondent no.2 vide order dated 23.1.2006 dismissed the application on the ground that order passed under Section 122B(4-F) of the Act were not open to challenge in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act as the same relates to cancellation of patta. He however, remanded the case back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Baheri, district Bareilly who had passed the order to re-examine the matter with regard to benefit of Section 122B(4-F) to the contesting respondents. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision which has also been dismissed vide order dated 21.5.2007 by the Board of Revenue. There can be no manner of doubt that the proceedings under Section 198(4) can be initiated for cancellation of lease/patta made by Gaon Sabha and orders passed under Section 122B(4-F) are not liable to be challenged in the said proceedings. Thus there appears to be no illegality in the impugned orders.

In so far as the claim of the petitioners over the land in dispute is concerned, since the matter has been remanded back to respondent no.3 to reconsider the claim of the contesting respondents under Section 122B(4-F) of the Act it shall be open to the petitioners to raise all such objections in that regard before the authority concerned who shall consider and decide the claim of the parties in accordance with law.

Subject to aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands dismissed in limine.

Dt.14.8.2007

nd.


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.