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


Name Pal Alias Anme Chand v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 51214 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 16162 (1 October 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. 51214 of 2004

Name Pal alias Name Chand


State of U. P. and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Tewari, holding brief of Sri R. P. S. Chauhan appearing for respondent no. 5.

Petitioner claims to be an allottee of the land in dispute for plantation of trees. It is undisputed that the land in dispute is a public utility land entered as ''KHALIHAN' in the revenue record. Proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was initiated for cancellation of ''Patta' on the ground that petitioner being a Government servant working as Postman does not fall in preferential category for allotment of land and the land being public utility land, the same could not have been allotted. The respondent no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate called for a report which was submitted on 4.1.2003 wherein it was confirmed that the land in dispute is recorded as ''KHALIHAN'. Vide order dated 19.5.2003 respondent no. 3 cancelled the ''Patta' granted in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the land in dispute is a public utility land and as such the same could not have been allotted. The revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad vide order dated 23.9.2004. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was allotted to him when he was unemployed and as such the same cannot be cancelled. It is further urged that revision is not maintainable as such he may be permitted to assail the order passed by respondent no. 3 by filing appeal.

In reply, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned order.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Even if the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that he was granted ''Patta' when he was unemployed and the revision has wrongly been dismissed as not maintainable even then the case of the petitioner is not acceptable in as much as it is well settled that a public utility land cannot be allotted. In the present case the land in dispute was recorded as KHALIHAN and was wrongly allotted in favour of the petitioner and the same has rightly been cancelled.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders passed by the respondents no. 3 and 2 cannot be interfered. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

1.10. 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.