Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


B. & Others v. Gaon Sabha & Others - WRIT - C No. 2626 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 7598 (25 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).


Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard Sri Sudamaji Shandilya, the learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.7 to 11 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. No one appears for the remaining petitioners.

The petitioners were allotted the land under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. It transpires that upon a complaint made by the villagers, the Commissioner initiated the proceedings and after giving an opportunity of hearing, passed an order dated 31.3.1986  cancelling the lease of the petitioners. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present writ petition.

The only ground urged before this Hon'ble Court is that the Commissioner could only take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 27(4) of the Act which provides that the Commissioner may on his own motion or on an application of an aggrieved person could cancel the settlement which is found to be       irregular and against the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents complainants were villagers who had neither participated nor applied for allotment of the land and therefore, were not aggrieved persons. Consequently, the Commissioner could not cancel the allotment order issued in favour of the petitioners.

In my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is bereft of merit.  The villagers, even though they have not participated in the allotment proceedings nonetheless, had a right to plead before the authorities and bring  certain facts to the knowledge of the authorities, namely, that the petitioners were not landless people and therefore were not entitled for allotment. Upon this complaint, an inquiry was initiated  by the Commissioner and it was found that the complaint made by the villagers was correct and that the petitioners were not the landless class of people contemplated under the Act and therefore, they were not entitled for any allotment.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted  that the petitioners are landless agriculture labourer as contemplated under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act and therefore were entitled for allotment under Section 27(3) of the Act of 1960. In my view the submission cannot be considered at this stage.

In view of the aforesaid, writ petition fails and is dismissed.


AKJ( WP 6226/86)


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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.