Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. JALDHARA PRADHAN & ANOTHER versus BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Jaldhara Pradhan & Another v. Block Development Officer & Others - WRIT - C No. 56787 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 3465 (23 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

1.Writ Petition No. 56787 of 2003

2. Writ Petition No. 24593 of 2004

HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J

HON'BLE R.K.RASTOGI, J.

1. This writ petition is against the recovery for surcharge under section 27 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (the Act).

2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the respondents. Section 27 of the Act empowers the prescribed authority to fix the amount of surcharge which can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Standing counsel has informed the court that the District Magistrate is the prescribed authority under section 27(2) of the Act whereas the commissioner of the division is the appellate authority under section 27(3) of the Act. In this case no orders have been passed by the District Magistrate as yet. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a representation before the District Magistrate of the district concerned within one month from today. In case any such representation is filed, it may be decided by the District Magistrate by a speaking order, if possible, within three-months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order; other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with the representation. The District Magistrate after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.  Till the representation of the petitioner is decided the recovery shall be kept in abeyance.

3. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

Date: 23. 9.2005

SKS


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.