Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHD. YUISUF versus A D J , COURT NO.3, KOTA AND O

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOHD. YUISUF v A D J , COURT NO.3, KOTA AND O - CW Case No. 3352 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 2519 (8 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3352/07

Mohammad Yusuf

Vs.

ADJ Court No.3, Kota & Ors. 8.5.2007

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Shri Ashwani Chobisa for petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional District

Judge No.3, Kota whereby his appeal against the order dated 24.5.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), South,

Kota was rejected. The learned Civil

Judge by his aforesaid order in the civil suit filed by the Divisional Forest

Officer allowed the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC with a direction that till pendency of the suit, the parties shall maintain status quo and shall not raise any construction not shall involve in any activity of demolition etc. and the dependents were directed to demolish the boundary wall which was raised on the land. The learned Court came to the prima facie conclusion about the entitlement of the Forest Department to claim that land.

The aforesaid order was upheld by the

Court of Additional District Judge in appeal. The Appellate Court in his order has mentioned that while the defendants could not produce any record to show as to how and when the lands in dispute came to be recorded in favour of UIT, Kota. On the other hand the Forest Department has produced records pertaining to the year 1978 (Svt. 2035) showing that the disputed land including the concerning lands were recorded in favour of the forest in which khasra no.86 was also included where the disputed land is located.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, I do not find that either of the courts below have committed any error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Mohammad Rafiq),J.

Rs/-


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.