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


Suredra Narain Singh @ Babu v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 22260 of 1987 [2007] RD-AH 8725 (8 May 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'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

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

The prescribed authority declared certain area of land as surplus. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition.

The sole submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the prescribed authority had wrongly rejected the sale deeds dated 27.11.1971 and 8.12.1971 and had wrongly included the area mentioned in the sale deeds in the holdings of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the area mentioned in the aforesaid sale-deeds  should have been excluded since it was bonafidely executed in favour of the respondent No.4 for adequate consideration and that it was not a benami transaction. I have perused the order of the prescribed authority and I find that the prescribed Authority  has gone in detail in holding that the transaction of the transfer of land by the alleged sale deeds appeared to be sham transaction and that no adequate consideration was paid and that it was a benami transaction. The same view was reiterated by the learned appellate authority.

This Court is therefore not inclined to  reconsider the matter on merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of three persons had not been taken into consideration by the prescribed authority in arriving at a conclusion that the said sale-deeds was not executed in good way. The submission of the learned counsel is erroneous. The prescribed authority has considered the matter in detail. The findings given cannot be interfered in a writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.


AKJ (WP 22260/87)


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.