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


Ram Bhajan v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 52368 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 7814 (26 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).


(Court No.23)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52368 of  2004

Ram Bhajan Versus State of U.P and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

From perusal of annexure 1 which is copy of six years Khatauni from 1410 fasli to 1415 fasli, it appears that Tehsildar passed some order on 6.9.2002 under section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A.L.R Act on oral direction of District Magistrate/ Collector settling an area of 0.06 acres of Gaon Sabha plot No. 60 in favour of petitioner who claims to be a member of scheduled castes. The mutation was affected on 11.10.2002 in the Khatauni mentioning the above orders of Tehsildar and District Magistrate. Thereafter respondent No.5 Smt Radha Devi filed application on 10.12.2002 before Deputy Collector Puranpur district Pilibhit stating therein that she had purchased plot No. 95 in May 2000 and the land which had been settled in favour of petitioner i.e. 0.06 acres of plot No. 60 was a Rasta adjoining to the land purchased by the respondent No.5 and on the basis of order of Tehsildar dated 6.9.2002, petitioner was obstructing the rasta. S.D.O directed the Tehsildar to look into the mater. Tehsildar directed Naib Tehsildar to submit the report. Naib Tehsildar submitted the report on 13.1.2003, copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition. Naib Tehsildar recommended for recalling the order  dated 6.9.2002. Tehsildar accordingly through order dated 25.2.2003 set-aside the order dated 6.9.2002 which is contained in annexure 4 to the writ petition. Against annexure 4 order of Tehsildar dated 25.2.2003, petitioner filed revision No.11 of 2003-04. Collector Pilibhit dismissed the revision on 9.8.2004, hence this writ petition.

In my opinion, order dated 6.9.2002 is illegal as it was passed on oral direction  of Collector. The law does not contemplate oral directions of superior authorities in such matters. However, order dated 25.2.2003 passed by the Tehsildar cancelling the order dated 6.9.2002 is also illegal  because petitioner was not heard before passing the order.

Accordingly both the orders i.e. orders dated 6.9.2002 and 25.2.2003 passed by the Tehsildar are set-aside. Order of Collector dated 9.8.2004 dismissing the revision is also set-aside.

Petitioner is at liberty to agitate his claim on the basis of section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A.L.R Act before S.D.O/ Deputy Collector. The claim may be filed within three months. In the application/ claim respondent No.5 must be impleaded as opposite party apart from State and Gaon Sabha. If such an application is filed then SDO concerned shall decide the same after hearing all the parties concerned and on the basis of evidence and in accordance with law without being influenced by orders of Tehsildar dated 6.9.2002 and 25.2.2003, report of Naib Tehsildar dated 13.1.2003 and order of Collector dated 9.8.2004.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.




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.