High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ravindra Singh v. A.C. & Others - WRIT - C No. 32227 of 1990  RD-AH 6456 (9 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32227 of 1990
Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others...................Respondents.
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.