Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BAL KISHAN versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bal Kishan v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 10887 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3373 (28 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

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

Proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act were initiated against the petitioner in respect of Gaon Sabha plot no.56. The petitioner denied being in possession of the said plot. The statement of Lekhpal was recorded. The Tehsildar passed an order on 18.1.1988 directing the eviction of the petitioner.He imposed damages of Rs.16,850/-. The petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by order dated 24.5.1996. Review application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 13.12.2005 and restoration application was dismissed on 15.12.2005. All these orders have been challenged in this writ petition.

I have heard learned standing counsel  and Sri N.N. Verma holding brief for Sri V.K. Singh counsel for respondent no.4.

Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.  

It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not challenging the order of eviction inasmuch as the petitioner is not in possession over the Gaon Sabha land and he is only challenging the order imposing damages.

The only material relied upon by the authorities below in support of the finding that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession is the statement of the Lekhpal. Copy of the statement of the Lekhpal is annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure-5. In his cross examination the Lekhpal has stated that he has given the report on the basis of what he was told by the inhabitants of the village and that the land is vacant.

As the petitioner is not challenging his eviction, it is open to the respondents to evict the petitioner if he is found in possession. The petitioner had also denied having been in possession. No ground for imposing damages was made out.

For the reason given above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The orders of the authorities below dated 18.1.1988 of Tehsildar, 24.5.1996 in revision, 13.12.2005 in review and 15.12.2005 in restoration are quashed in respect of imposing damages  only and rest of the order is maintained. If the petitioner is found in possession it is open to the Gaon Sabha to evict the petitioner from the  property in dispute.

Dt. 28.2.2007

sn/wp-10887/07


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.