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 Kumar & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Another - WRIT - C No. 58437 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2719 (12 September 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).


Civil Misc. W.P. No. 58437 of 2005

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

A writ petition was filed challenging the land acquisition in respect of the same plots which are the subject matter of this writ petition. The writ petition has been dismissed. A Review Application is pending. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from the said plots of land pursuant to that acquisition.

It is obvious that such a prayer must be made in the said review application and not by way of fresh writ petition,  because if the review application is rejected and the acquisition of land is upheld, there can be no possible ground for restraining the taking over of possession pursuant to such land acquisition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the earlier writ petition did not challenge the acquisition directly but challenged the threatened dispossession of the petitioners on some other grounds. Even, if that be so, the earlier writ petition having been filed and having been decided by the judgment dated 12.9.1988, in which provisions of Land Acquisition Act have been referred, it would not remain open to the petitioners to file this fresh writ petition for challenging the acquisition as the same would be barred by grossest of laches.

The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon some injunction decree passed by the Civil Court is also misconceived for making this writ petition maintainable. While, it may be open to the decree holders to execute the decree but that would not permit the petitioners to file this second writ petition challenging the acquisition or dispossession on the basis of land acquisition.

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Dated : September 12, 2005



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.