Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. CHHAYA PALIWAL versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Chhaya Paliwal v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 68991 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6075 (21 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

           On 16.7.2005 the S.D.M. Orai passed an order directing the entry in the name of the petitioner to be expunged from the records and he also directed that the name of the Gaon Sabha be entered. The finding is that the petitioner is the wife of a lekhpal and her name was entered on the basis of forged papers over plot no.480, which was ''talab' of the Gaon Sabha and plot no. 482 which was banjar land of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner challenged the order in revision on the ground that the order of the S.D.M. was passed without any opportunity of hearing. The commissioner by his impugned order dated 29.9.2005 has dismissed the revision. The finding is that the S.D.M. was well within his right to correct the record as the entries were based on forged records and no opportunity was needed.

       Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the authorities below that the entries were made on the basis of forged papers is erroneous and that if the petitioner had been given opportunity she would have demonstrated that the entries were correct. The petitioner's case is that a patta was granted in favour of the petitioner by the Tehsildar and that orders in consolidation were also passed in her favour. The S.D.M. found these papers forged. It appears that the petitioner's contention that no opportunity was given is correct.   The recital contained in the order of the Commissioner is that no opportunity was needed. In the circumstances the Commissioner  could have directed post decisional hearing to be given to the petitioner. In the interest of justice the petitioner was entitled to opportunity. In these circumstances the order of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 29.9.2005 is set aside and it is directed that if the petitioner makes a representation to the S.D.M.,  Orai  against the order dated 16.7.2005 of the S.D.M. within a period of six weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order along with all papers in support of her case the S.D.M., Orai shall give post decisional hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion upon the merits of the petitioner's case.  The writ petition is partly allowed.

      Copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual costs within three days.

21.11.2005.

s.wp.68991/05.


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.