Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVINDRA SINGH versus A.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravindra Singh v. A.C. & Others - WRIT - C No. 32227 of 1990 [2007] RD-AH 6456 (9 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. 32227 of 1990

Ravindra Singh.......................................................................Petitioner

         Versus

Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others...................Respondents.

Hon.Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The prescribed authority passed an order declaring certain area as surplus land. The petitioner, being the son of the original tenure holder Tara Singh, filed an application for the recall of the said order on the ground that no notice was served upon the petitioner and that the entire proceedings were initiated against a dead person, namely, against his father who had died in the year 1983, whereas, the  Prescribed Authority had passed the order on 18.5.1987. The prescribed authority, after considering the submissions of the petitioner, rejected the restoration application on the ground that the notice under section 10(2) of the Act was issued  to the heirs of the original tenure holder and that there was a presumption of service since the same was sent by registered post at the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal which also met with the same result. Consequently, the writ petition.

It has also come on the record that the original tenure holder  had sold the same land to one Amarjeet Singh and Autar Singh who pursued the matter and filed an appeal against the  order of the prescribed authority and thereafter filed a Writ Petition No.928 of 1988 which was dismissed on 7.7.1989. The prescribed authority concluded that this was a second round of litigation and when the alleged purchaser failed in his attempt to get any orders from the Court, the heirs of the original tenure holder thereafter moved an application for the recall of the order. The Court held that since the notices were sent by registered post, it was presumed that it was duly served. Further the authorities concluded that they had knowledge of the proceedings through the alleged purchasers. Consequently, the Court found that since the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings, their recall application was misconceived and was rejected.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notices were served upon the petitioner since they were residing in Punjab and were not residing at the address indicated in the notice. In my opinion, this is an afterthought, inasmuch as, the application for  recall does not mention this fact. Further, the authorities below has given a categorical finding that the petitioner's had knowledge of the proceedings. This being a finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and is dismissed.

Dated: 9.4.2007

AKJ  


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.