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


Irfan v. Collector & Others - WRIT - C No. 9345 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 5779 (16 November 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).



I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Arjun Singhal and the counsel for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 19.11.1998 passed in Revision No.27 of 1997-98 under Section 122-B (4-A) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that it has been alleged by the petitioner that Gata No. 462 was allotted in favour of the petitioner's father as Abadi by a valid resolution by Gaon Sabha dated 3.8.1969. Surprisingly a notice was given to the petitioner that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation over Gata no.462. An objection was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector asserting that the land has been allotted in the name of the petitioner's father for Abadi and in compliance the petitioner has made construction over the said land since 1969. The said land no more remains with the Gaon Sabha and the proceedings which have been initiated are motivated and are arbitrary in nature. The Assistant Collector has recorded the statement of the Lekhpal of the village who clearly states that the said land was allotted in favour of the petitioner's father. The Assistant Collector after verifying the record and on the basis o the statement of the Lekhpal and after verification of the allotment register has come to the conclusion that the said land was allotted in favour of the petitioner's father and notice was held to be invalid.

The respondent Gaon Sabha aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a revision before the Collector, respondent no.1 who illegally without verifying the relevant record has allowed the revision. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this Court.

The writ petition was entertained and notices were issued and the respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed in which a specific averment has been made that notices under Section 122 -B of the Act was valid and the proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner has also been held valid by the revisional Court. As the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the Gaon Sabha property that is a Talab recorded in the revenue record and there was no resolution in favour of the petitoehr's father for allotting a Patta in favour of the petitioner's father. The revisional court has recorded a clear finding that in the reveue record, the said land is recorded as Talab and the petitioner has illegally occupied the land without any authority of law.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the record as the revisional court has recorded a clear finding to this effect that Gata No. 462 has been recorded in the revenue record as Talab and there was no resolution in favour of the petitioner or petitioner's father by the Land Management Committee for allotting the said land in favour of the petitioner's father, the revisional court has recorded a finding of fact to this effect that the pond is existing has been accepted by both the parties. The Lekhpal has given a clear statement before the Assistant Collector that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant and by putting brick-kiln and making foundation the petitioner wants to change the nature of Talab. Copy of the resolution, which was produced before the revisional court, is unsigned by the Pradhan, therefore, no sanctity to the said document can be given.

In view of the aforesaid fact and finding recorded by the revisional court vide its order dated 19.1.1998 which is a finding of fact recorded on the basis of the relevant record, I find no justification to interfere in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order is hereby vacated. It is however, open to the petitioner to approach the relevant court of law for his grievance as advised.



W.P. No. 9345 of 1999


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.