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


State Of U.P. v. Ram Chandra - WRIT - C No. 11377 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 3011 (22 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).


Judgement Reserved on 24.1.2007

Judgement Delivered on 22.2.2007

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11377 of 1985

State of U.P Versus Ram Chand and another .

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

At the time of argument no one appeared for respondent No.1 hence only the argument of learned standing counsel for petitioner State were heard.

In ceiling proceedings under U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 against respondent No.1 initially prescribed authority Deoband passed the order on 30.11.1974 declaring 24 Bigha, 12 Biswa 17 Biswancies land as surplus. The said order was passed in case No. 435 of 1974. Against the said order appeal was filed. Appellate court reduced the area of surplus land held by respondent No.1 to 16 Bigha 2 Biswa 12 Biswancy. Against the said order respondent No.1 filed writ petition in this High Court  being Writ Petition No. 9417 of 1975. The said writ petition was allowed on 11.5.1978 and matter was remanded to the appellate court. In the said judgement it was held that some land was held by respondent No.1 as Sir and Khudkast hence those of his grandsons who had been born before 1.7.1952 (the date of vesting under U.P.Z.A.L.R Act) had share by birth in the said land. After remand appellate court held that petitioner possessed 3 Bigha 2 Biswa 8 Biswancy land as surplus land. Said judgement was delivered on 26.10.1979 by IV Additional District Judge Saharanpur. Against the said judgement respondent No.1 again filed writ petition being Writ petition No. 9847 of 1979. In the said writ petition it was held that the question of right of petitioners grand sons had already been decided in the earlier writ petition. One of the points argued in the said writ petition was regarding nature and character of plot No. 44. Respondent No.1 had contended that it was brick kiln and not agricultural land. State had also filed writ petition against order of appellate court dated 26.10.1979. Both the writ petitions were allowed on 26.2.1982 and matter was again remanded to the appellate court to decide the appeal i.e. Ceiling Appeal No.853 of 1974. II A.D.J Saharanpur decided the said appeal on 23.3.1985 holding that respondent No.1 had no surplus land.  The said judgement has been challenged by the State through this writ petition.

As far as the question regarding nature and character of plot No. 44 is concerned there is no fault in the judgement of the appellate court. After taking into consideration the entire evidence on record as per direction of this court in the earlier writ petition including Commissioner's report appellate court found that since 1966-67 Brick Kiln was in existence over plot No. 44 and the said plot was wholly unfit for raising any crop.

As far as question of birth right of grandson is concerned. The appellate court held that the said question had already been decided by the High Court in the two earlier writ petitions (Supra). In respect of Subhash grandson of respondent No.1 it was held that he was born on 7.10.1950. Appellate court also found that according to Khatauni of 1359 fasli several plots admeasuring 73 Bigha 18 Biswa were entered as Sir and Khudkast of Ram Chandra and his brother.

As the finding of right of Subhash grandson of respondent No.1 had already been recorded in the earlier two judgements of this court hence no fault can be found with the finding of the appellate court giving benefit to respondent No.1 on the basis thereof.

The question that the said point could not be permitted to be raised after consolidation operations in view of Supreme Court judgement reported in Narendra Singh Vs. Jai Bhagwan AIR 2005 SC 582 can not be considered in this writ petition for two reasons. Firstly nothing was brought on record regarding consolidation operation in the area in question. Secondly this question has already been decided in favour of respondent NO.1 through earlier two judgements by this court, mentioned above.

Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.  

Dated: 22.2.2007



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.