Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PAL & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Pal & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - C No. 38626 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14260 (20 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

COURT NO.29

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38526 of 2007

Ram Pal & Ors.

Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners in a most scandalous manner, seeking relief under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 merely on the ground that the proceedings under the said Act 1976 stood lapsed after the Act being repealed in 1999. The proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioners and vide order dated 28.06.1977 an area measuring 9854.00 sq. meters was declared as surplus. It is stated that father and mother of the petitioners have died. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order only in July, 2007. However, the petitioners are not in a position to give the dates of death of aforesaid persons.

As the petition does not disclose the dates of death of father and mother of the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the petition has been filed in a cavalier manner, without giving material facts. This petition does not contain proper pleadings.

It is settled proposition of law that  a party has  to plead the case and produce/adduce  sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"In  our opinion, when a point, which  is ostensibly a point of law is required to be  substantiated  by  facts,  the  party raising  the  point,  if he is  the  writ petitioner,  must  plead and  prove  such facts  by evidence which must appear from the  writ  petition  and  if  he  is  the respondent,  from the counter  affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded.  In a writ petition or   in the   counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it."        

Similar view has been reiterated in M/s. Larsen &  Toubro  Ltd.  & Ors. Vs.  State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National  Building Construction  Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan  & Ors., AIR  1998  SC 2779;  Ram Narain  Arora  Vs. Asha Rani  &  Ors.,  (1999) 1  SCC 141; Smt Chitra Kumari Vs. Union  of India & Ors., AIR 2001  SC 1237;  and  State  of U.P.   Vs.   Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298.              

In   M/s. Atul   Castings   Ltd.   Vs. Bawa  Gurvachan  Singh,  AIR 2001 SC 1684, the  Hon'ble  Apex Court observed as under:-    

"The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law."                        

Similar view has   been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti  &  Anr.  Vs.   Prakash   N. Rudrakar & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18; Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. P. Savithramma & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 653; and Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252.

In view above, as the petition does not contain proper pleadings and learned counsel for the petitioners failed to plead the case of the petitioners and prove the same by substantiating the evidence, we are not in a position to decide the case. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

20.08.2007

AHA


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.