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


Rahamatullah & Others v. D.M. & Others - WRIT - C No. 41979 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 6168 (22 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).


Court No. 37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41979 Of 2004

Rahmatullah and others.................Vs............D.M. Mathura and others

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4.09.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38215 of 2003, Rahmatullah and others Vs. The District Magistrate, Mathura and others had decided the representation made by the petitioner vide order dated 6th July, 2004. He has rejected the representation on the ground that the matter relating to title of the land in question is in dispute in the suit pending before the Civil Court and till such time the title is decided, the possession of the land cannot be delivered to the petitioners.

We have heard Shri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri P.K. Mishra on behalf of the petitioners and Shri V.N. Agrawal, learned standing counsel who represents Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. Shri Pankaj Shukla has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5.

The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to Annexure S.R.A.-2, filed along with the supplementary rejoinder affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Singh affirmed on 19.09.05, in which the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mathura vide order dated 12.09.05 had decided the Issue No. 3 regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining and deciding the suit. He has held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the Revenue Court alone has the jurisdiction. According to Shri Singh, in view of the subsequent development, even though the order passed by the District Magistrate on 6.07.2004 must have been technically correct, yet in view of the subsequent development, as in the eyes of law, the suit is not pending, there is no dispute regarding title, which fact should be reconsidered by the District Magistrate.

Without going into the merits of the case, as to whether there is any dispute regarding title at present or not, we deem it fit and proper to direct the District Magistrate, Mathura to pass a fresh order upon a representation being made by the petitioner within two months thereafter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their representative as also the representatives of Jain Inter College, Mathura.

It is made clear that the court has not adjudicated the claim on merits.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

Dt: 22.11.05

T. Sinha.


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.