Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M. TIWARI versus P. AUTHORITY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M. Tiwari v. P. Authority & Others - WRIT - C No. 6049 of 1980 [2007] RD-AH 2626 (19 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Judgment Reserved on 12.2.2007

Judgment Delivered on 19.2.2007

(Reserved)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6049 of 1980

Markandey Tiwari Versus Prescribed Authority Deoria and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

This writ petition is directed against order passed by the Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act dated 23.7.1979 given in Ceiling case No. 130 State Vs. Markandey Tiwari. Through the said order an area of 18.04 acres in terms of irrigated land belonging to the petitioner was declared as surplus land. Against the said order ceiling appeal No. 87 of 1979 was filed. Appeal was substantially dismissed on 11.4.1980 by II Additional District Judge, Deoria. However, in respect of the choice, some directions favourable to the petitioner were given by the appellate court and it was indicated that surplus land should be taken from four villages indicated by the petitioner and thereafter from the plots of village Pipra Jham also indicated by the petitioner. The said order of the appellate court has also been challenged through this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that some agricultural land treated to be of petitioner had been dedicated to deity by petitioner's mother and in that regard a memorandum/ yaddasht was also prepared in the year 1958 and the said land had wrongly been treated to be belonging to the petitioner. In that regard some documents pertaining to income and expenditure of Thakur Ram Janki Mandir where Deity in question is installed was filed before the prescribed authority, which was not believed. Through supplementary affidavit, the said documents were filed in this court also. Appellate court held that if there was any dedication then its effect should have been recorded in the revenue records, which was not done. Consolidation in all the villages in which petitioner had land had taken place. CH Form 23 in respect of the village in question i.e Pipra Jham was filed by the petitioner before the prescribed authority. Even during consolidation, no objection was raised and no prayer was made for recording the land in the name of Deity. The Supreme Court in Narendra Singh Vs. Jai Bhagwan AIR 2005 SC 582 has held that if such type of objection is not taken in consolidation proceedings then it can not subsequently be raised and it would be barred by section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In Kailash Chandra Vs. State 2007 (2) Alld. Daily Judgment 113,  I have held that in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court authority no such plea can be raised before the ceiling authority if it was not raised during consolidation operations. In the said Judgment, I have further held that earlier contrary view taken by this court in some authorities is no more good law in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment. Accordingly the aforesaid plea was not available to the petitioner, as it had not been raised during consolidation operations.

After 24.1.1971 some suits were filed in between petitioner and other persons who were very close relation of petitioner and the said suits were decreed on the basis of compromise. Both the courts below rightly ignored the said decrees as they were obtained/ passed after 24.1.1971 in view of section 5(6) of Ceiling Act.

Accordingly I do not find any merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.

Waqar

19 .2.2007


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.