Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARAMVIR SINGH versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AT ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dharamvir Singh v. Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 838 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 450 (9 January 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 Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel.

The petitioner, aggrieved by an order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 3rd March 2006 whereby a review application filed by the petitioner has been rejected, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

By the aforesaid review application the petitioner sought review of the order dated 17th May 1995 whereby the Board of Revenue has answered the reference made by the trial court and directed that the matter shall be looked into afresh under Section 198 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by the Additional Collector. Further direction is that it is left to the Collector to determine the number of allottees who could not be disqualified at this stage on account of the fact that the petitioner is not party to the proceedings. He filed application only for the first time when he sought review of the order.

I have gone through he order of the Board of Revenue and I find that it does not suffer from any error much less an error apparent on the face of record which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri B.B. Paul emphatically argued that the petitioner being the resident of Gaon Sabha is very well interested in the Gaon Sabha property, therefore, his review application ought to have been allowed by the Board of Revenue and he should be allowed to participate in the proceedings. I am not in agreement with Sri Paul. In these circumstances I do not find any force in the argument advanced by Sri B.B. Paul.

In view of what has been stated above the writ petition has no force and is dismissed.

Dt: 9.1.2007.

mhu - 838/07


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.