Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. versus B.R. SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. v. B.R. Singh - WRIT - C No. 4528 of 1990 [2007] RD-AH 5877 (2 April 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

(Court No.28)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4528 of 1990

State of U.P. vs. Brij Raj Singh and another

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

In the first innings the matter was decided in favour of the tenure holder and it was held that he did not possess any surplus  land under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Thereafter fresh notice was issued against the tenure holder - respondent no.1.  Under Sections 29 and 30 fresh proceedings may be initiated if tenure holder has acquired some more land or some of his un-irrigated land has become irrigated.  Fresh proceedings were initiated in the form of case no.6/12/10/14.  Assistant Collector/Prescribed authority, Phoolpur District Allahabad decided the matter in March 1986 and declared 7.03 acres of land as surplus land.  Against the said order respondent no.1 filed appeal being appeal no.13 of 1986.  Commissioner, Allahabad division, Allahabad on 16.5.1988 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Prescribed authority and held that there was no occasion or justification to initiate fresh proceedings.  The Learned Commissioner held that there was absolutely no allegation that any plot of respondent no.1 had become irrigated after conclusion of the earlier proceedings.

Unless the matter is covered by Section 29 or 30 of the Ceiling Act fresh proceedings cannot be initiated. Findings recorded on the earlier occasion are binding upon ceiling authorities at later stage as held by the Supreme Court in D.N.Singh vs. Civil Judge A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2264.

I do not find any error in the order passed by the appellate court.

Writ petition is therefore dismissed.

2.4.2007

RS/-


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.