Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHULEY versus COLLECTOR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhuley v. Collector - WRIT - C No. 13228 of 1988 [2007] RD-AH 6311 (6 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

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

   

            A notice in Form 49-ka was issued to the petitioner for being in unauthorized occupation of plot in dispute, which was vested in the Nagar Maha Palika.  

          I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

          It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that it is only at the instance of the Nagar Maha Palika that the proceedings under Section 122-B could have been initiated but in this case the petitioner's unauthorized possession was reported by the Lekhpal. It is not disputed that the Naib Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector who passed the order dated 18.1.1985 did have jurisdiction to decide the case. The finding recorded by both the authorities below is that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land of the Nagar Maha Palika. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not challenging the finding that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation and the only submission being made is that the report should have been made by the Nagar Maha Palika and not by the Lekhpal. In my opinion the contention does not have any merit. Once the basic fact that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation is not disputed the order passed under Section 122-B cannot be excepted to.  Moreover, under Sub Section (2) of Section 122-B the Assistant Collector can proceed on information of the unauthorized possession received from the local authority or otherwise. He could therefore proceed under that provision on the information given by the Lekhpal. In any case it is not a fit case for interference in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that the damages of Rs. 2,448/- imposed by the Naib Tehsildar is excessive.

       

      In the facts and circumstances it does not appear that the damages imposed are excessive. No ground for interference has been made out. Dismissed.

6.4.2007.

s. wp.13229/88.

   


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.