Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KANPUR versus BOARD OF REVENUE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur v. Board Of Revenue & Others - WRIT - B No. 17206 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 7899 (27 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

"Reserved"

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2005.

Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur

Versus

The Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and others.

.................

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 12th November, 2002, whereby the Board of Revenue while deciding the revision filed by the contesting respondents set aside the order passed by the S.D.O./Assistant Collector 1st Class dated 6th August, 1999 and directed the name of Chhedi Lal, Manohar Lal and Vijai Kumar, sons of Khunnoo Lal be maintained in the revenue record.

The brief facts of the present case are that the proceeding under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act (In short 'the Act') was initiated before the Assistant Collector 1st Class, who vide order dated 6th August, 1999 directed that the name of Chhedi Lal, Mahohar Lal and Vijai Kumar, sons of Khunnoo Lal be expunched from the land in dispute and in its place, the same be recorded as Usar/Banjar of Kanpur Development Authority.  Aggrieved by the order dated 6th august, 1999 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class, the respondent in the present writ petition filed a revision under Section 219 of 'the Act' before the Board of Revenue.  The Board of Revenue vide order dated 12th November, 2002 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Class dated 6th August, 1999 and directed the name of Chhedi Lal, Mahohar Lal and Vijai Kumar, sons of Khunnoo Lal be maintained in the revenue record.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the settled law of this Court, mutation proceedings under Section 34 of 'the Act' being summary proceedings and in fact do not decide any right or title, the High Court should not interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue in the writ petition.  Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon recent decision of this Court reported in 2001 R.J., 1214 - Mahavir Vs. Board of Revenue and others, wherein this Court relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1956 A.L.J., 807 - Jaipal Minor Vs. The Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and others, have arrived at the aforesaid conclusion.

In reply to the aforesaid decision, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents has relied upon the following decisions reported in 2002 (93) R.D., 363 - Qari Naimuddin Vs. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others; 1999 (90) R.D., 416 - Narain Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others; 1986 R.D., 302 Brahma Deo and others Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others; A.I.R. 1957 Alld., 205 - Jai Pal Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others ; 1989 R.D., 35 - Shiv Raj Gupta Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others; 1991 R.D.,(DB) 72 - Ram Bharose Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others; and 2001 (1) A.W.C., 613 - Kunj Behari Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and others.

In reply to the aforesaid decisions cited on behalf of contesting respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the view taken by the Board of Revenue, so far as merits of the case is concerned deserves to be quashed and tries to make distinction of Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jaipal minor (supra).

I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.  In view of what has been laid down in the cases referred to above to the effect that this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the order passed in proceedings arising out of Section 34 of 'the Act', in my opinion this writ petition has no force.

In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.  The interim order, if any, stands vacated.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

Dated: 27.04.2006.

Rks.


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.