Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. ATRESH AND ANOTHER versus COLLECTOR, MORADABAD AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Atresh And Another v. Collector, Moradabad And Others - WRIT - C No. 33695 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 1374 (20 May 2005)

 

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

Court no. 1

WP No. 33695 of 2002

Smt. Atresh and another  vs. Collector Moradabad and others

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J

1. Petitioner no. 1 claimed that there was a resolution of Land Management Committee  allotting Abadi plot to her on 10.3.1988 and this was approved by the Assistant Collector on 22.4.1988.  Respondent nos. 7 to 9 (the contesting respondents) filed an application for cancellation of lease. It was registered as case no. 130 of 1989-90. The Additional Collector allowed the application on 23.7.1990. The revision against the same was dismissed on 12.10.1990. The petitioner filed WP No. 31448 of 1990 against the same.

2. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition,  the plot in dispute was allotted to the contesting respondents on 4.1.2000. The petitioner filed an application before the Collector for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the contesting respondents. When no order was passed on the application filed by the petitioner the contesting respondents filed writ petition no. 367 of 2002 before this court. This writ petition was disposed of on 16.4.2002 with a direction that the application filed by the petitioner in this case may be expeditiously decided. The Collector dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on 29.5.2002. The petitioner filed revision against this order which was dismissed as withdrawn on 9.10.2002, hence the present writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri AN Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner  and Sri Dipak Jaiswal, counsel for respondent.

4. Petitioner no. 1 claimed that a resolution was passed by the Land Management Committee on 10.3.1988 and approval was granted on 22.4.1988. However, this was cancelled by the order dated 23.7.1990 and the revision against the same was dismissed on 12.10.1990. The writ petition no. 31448 of 1990 against these orders have now been dismissed on 5.4.2004. No further proceeding has been taken against this order and it has become final. In view of this the petitioner can not claim any right over the property in dispute on the basis of allotment made in their favour.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners may not have any right over the property in dispute yet  they can file a complaint against any allotment if it is illegal.

6. It is correct that the petitioner can always file a complaint. Nevertheless the Collector while dismissing the application of the petitioner has mentioned that the allotment has been made  after complying with all the formalities. There is no illegality in this finding. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.

Dated: 20.5.2005

BBL


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.