Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJA RAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raja Ram v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 415 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 7534 (24 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.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.415 of 1999

Raja Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner started proceedings for cancellation of patta granted to contesting Smt. Vishun Kunwari-respondent no.5., under Section 198 (4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. According to the petitioner patta was granted by the L.M.C./Gaon Sabha to respondent No.5 in the year 1961, however, that allotment was irregular and illegal. During arguments, Court repeatedly enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he was admitting that patta had, in fact, been granted to respondent No.5 in the year 1961 or not. Learned counsel every time categorically stated that even though grant of patta was illegal but still it is a fact that patta was granted to respondent no.5 in the year 1961. Proceedings for cancellation of patta were initiated in the year 1996, i.e. after 35 years. Cancellation proceedings after 35 years are not maintainable. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that firstly petitioner is in possession and secondly petitioner is a member of Schedule Caste  and he occupied the land in dispute in the year 1975. It has also been argued that the name of respondent No.5 was recorded in the revenue records over the land in dispute in 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that meanwhile consolidation had also intervened, however, respondent No.5 did not take any steps to get his name entered into revenue records.

I am not expressing any opinion regarding merits of the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the cancellation application was not maintainable after 35 years. It was clearly barred by time. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was not aware of allotment of 1961 in favour of the petitioner until 1996. Even if it is correct, still it would not affect the limitation and latches.

Through this writ petition, orders dated 18.04.1998 and 25.11.1998 have been challenged. The first order was passed by Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Dehat in case No.103 of 1997-98 and the second order was passed by Revisional Court/Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kanpur Division, Kanpur in revision No.06 of 1998. I do not find any error in the impugned orders. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

However, if petitioner considers that he has got a better title over the land in dispute, then he may initiate such proceedings, which may be available to him under law subject to all possible objections by the respondent No.5.

Date:24.04.2007

NLY


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.