Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OM PRAKASH & ORS., versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.,

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Om Prakash & Ors., v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., - WRIT - C No. 25 of 1990 [2007] RD-AH 14416 (23 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. 35

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25 of 1990

Om Prakash & Ors.,

Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,

*******

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') and the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal that had been filed against the aforesaid order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting the objections filed under Section 11(2) of the Act is liable to be set aside as the objections have been rejected merely on the ground that the entries made in the ''Khatauni' of the year 1356 and 1359 Fasli appeared to be doubtful and no cogent reasons have been given in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal treating the entries to be doubtful as the extracts that had been filed were not coloured by red ink as provided for under the provisions of the U.P. Land Records Manual. He submitted that this finding is liable to be set aside as it is only the original records maintained in the office that are coloured with red ink and the extracts of the records are not to be coloured.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has not been able to substantiate that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority are based on cogent reasons.

It is, therefore, apparent that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority fell in error rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the Act. The entries made in relevant extracts of Khatauni for the year 1356 have been rejected purely on irrelevant consideration.

The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority are, therefore, liable to be quashed and are, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority to decide the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the Act on merit and in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above.    

Date: 23.8.2007

NSC


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.