J.N. TIWARI versus STATE

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

J.N. Tiwari v. State - WRIT - C No. 4193 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 7624 (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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon.Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The proceedings under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1960  was initiated and the prescribed authority after considering the evidence on record declared 41.87 acres of land as surplus. This order became final since no appeal was filed. Subsequently, the respondent Nos.5 to 11 filed an application for reconsideration of the matter on the ground that certain plots  of their land had been declared surplus which should be taken out from the holding of the petitioners. The said application was rejected upon which they filed an appeal which was allowed by an order dated 4.4.1980. The appellate court remanded the matter back to the Prescribed Authority to redetermine the surplus land. Based on the aforesaid order the prescribed authority, 0.56 decimal land from plot No.4 and 0.84 decimal from plot No.730 M was taken out and declared surplus. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal which was dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original order of the Prescribed Authority had become final and that the matter could not be reopened at the behest of respondent No.5 to 11. Consequently the order of the appellate authority allowing the appeal of respondent Nos.5 to 11 and reopening the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise this ground at this stage, inasmuch as, such ground was not taken by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority nor was the order of the prescribed authority challenged in any proceedings. Consequently, it is no longer open for the petitioner to questioned the legality and validity of the order of the District Judge dated 24.3.1980.

Considering the merits of the case, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.

Dated: 25.4.2007

AKJ(WP 4193/86)

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 |

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