Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIVNATH versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JAUNPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shivnath v. State Of U.P. Thru' District Magistrate Jaunpur And Others - WRIT - C No. 71505 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6284 (23 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

Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71505 of 2005

Shiv Nath Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This writ petition has been filed against the two orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court, annexure Nos. 7 and 9 to this writ petition.

The petitioner is defendant in a civil suit for relief of injunction being Suit No. 22 of 2001 in which the trial court passed an interim order restraining the petitioner from interfering into the plaintiff-respondents' possession over the disputed property of plot No. 882 Ka, area 053 aer. The petitioner had given a counter affidavit opposing the injunction application stating that the entry of plaintiffs' name over the aforesaid plot has been wrongly recorded, though, the consolidation authorities had already directed the aforesaid plot to be entered into the defendant's name.

Both the courts below having found the entries in the revenue record, held that the plaintiffs had prima-facie case in their favour and that the defendant-petitioner had no right to interfere in the plaintiffs' possession over the property in question. The petitioner had meanwhile, moved the revenue authorities for correction of record and though, his application had been dismissed by the District Magistrate, his revision has been subsequently allowed by the order dated 24th September, 2005 and directions have been given by the Commissioner vide annexure-12 for making such correction.

Obviously, since the revenue authorities were in favour of the plaintiffs, both the courts below did not find it justifiable to ignore those entries at that stage and rejected the injunction application of the plaintiffs respondents. But after the impugned appellate order dated 11.8.2005 was passed, the defendant petitioner had obtained order of the Commissioner dated 24.09.2005. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was quite justifiable for the petitioner to have preferred a petition  for review of the appellate order before the appellate court instead of approaching this court in extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the directions of the Commissioner have been given for correction of the record, they had to be carried out by the revenue department and as such, once the revenue record stands corrected, the appellate court (Additional District Judge) which passed the order dated 11.8.2005 shall take cognizance of all these facts and if review petition is filed, it shall be properly appreciated and suitable orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

23.11.2005

gp/71505


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.