Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. THRU' EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ALIGARH versus J.K. AUTO CENTRE THRU' BALDEO KUMAR JUNEJA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. Thru' Executive Engineer, Aligarh v. J.K. Auto Centre Thru' Baldeo Kumar Juneja - WRIT - C No. 139 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 7337 (20 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.Dr.B.S.Chauhan, J.

Hon.Rajes Kumar, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.06.1996, by which the complaint filed under section 13(2) of U.P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") has been rejected.

The brief facts giving rise to this case are that before the Prescribed Authority, a complaint was filed on 21.07.1990 against the respondent  that it had started the construction of the building within the limit of controlled area  at a distance of 10.5 mtrs. from the centre line of the road in Km.134 H.Meter 6 side of left road without permission of Collector Aligarh. The respondent contested the case and the Prescribed Authority dismissed the case recording the finding that the respondent had neither raised any construction nor made any attempt to raise the construction. It was an old building, which was purchased by the respondent only 5-6 years prior to the submission of the complaint.  It was constructed by predecessor of the respondent. Therefore, there was no force in the complaint. The order dated 12.06.1996  has been challenged by filing the writ petition in the year 2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Srivastava has submitted for inordinate delay because of filing the review petition before the said Prescribed Authority against the order dated 12.06.1996, which was subsequently, dismissed as not maintainable.

Had that as it may the petitioner raised the disputed question of fact on which finding of fact had been recorded by the Prescribed Authority dismissing the complaint, filed by the petitioner under section 13 (2) of the Act. There is no material on record on the basis of which, it can be held that the finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority are perverse being based on evidence or contrary to the evidence on record. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Sri S.K. Rai has appeared for the respondent.

Dt.20.04.07

R./139/03


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.