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


Vinod Prakash & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 7593 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2322 (12 February 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).


Court No.40

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7593 of 2007

Vinod Prakash & another ..... petitioner


State of U.P & others                   ....... Respondents.


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

This writ petition arising out of proceedings under section 34 of the U.P Land Revenue Act  was filed by respondent No. 5 on the basis of Will executed by one Ram Charan Das.  An objection was raised to the application  that there was no jurisdiction with the Tahsildar to proceed on the Will.    It was further stated that  a  suit has been filed in the Civil Court  with regard to issues raised in the application.   It was prayed by the petitioners objectors that question of jurisdiction  be decided first.   The Trial Court  observed that  such question will be decided at the time of hearing.  An appeal was filed by the petitioner which too was rejected.  A revision was also filed by the petitioner which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner.  

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner having raised the question of jurisdiction,  the same ought to have been decided first.    It is submitted that there was no authority to execute the Will by Ram Charan Das.  The revisional Court took the view that trial Court  has not taken any final decision with regard to jurisdiction and the same shall be taken after completion of the evidence.  It was further observed that deciding the said question at the time of final hearing will cause no prejudice to either of the parties.  

I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.  The view taken that no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties if the question of jurisdiction shall be decided at the time of hearing suffers from no infirmity.  No final opinion has been expressed by either of the Courts on the issues raised.  The application under section 34 was filed in the year 2002 and about four years have elapsed, ends of justice be served in observing that the issues raised by the application dated 16.8.2002  be decided at the time of final disposal as the first issue and other issues be considered thereafter may be simultaneously.  The application being pending for about four years, ends of justice be served in directing the Tahsildar, respondent No. 2 to dispose of the matter  expeditiously.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

Date 12.2.2007



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.